


LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. 
Shelf J3ty.. 



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 



BAPTISM: 



By J. DITZLER, D.D. 



"PROVE ALL THINGS."— Paul. 



/Sy/ fK 



LOUISVILLE, KY. 

JOHN P. MORTON AND COMPANY, PRINTERS. 

1880. 



7T 



WASHINGTON 



3* 



Copyrighted 1881, by J. DITZLER. 



To My Beloved and Esteemed Former 
Preceptor, 

Rev. B. H. McCOWN, D.D. 

OF ANCHORAGE, KY. 

This Work is Respectfully Dedicated 
By the Author. 



Rev. B. H. McCown, D.D.: 

Dear Sir — For several years after attending college I 
had the honor of pursuing the languages under your di- 
rection. You were present, as you told me, during the 
discussion between Mr. Campbell and Rice at Lexington, 
Ky. Elder A. Campbell, as the debate shows, selected 
you as a most proper authority to whom, on his part, he 
preferred referring a philological point in dispute. You 
are presumed, therefore, on both sides of this controversy, 
to be an impartial and able witness. Not on this account 
only, but because of your former kindness toward and in- 
terest in the Author, I have dedicated this Book, the result 
of so much pains and toil, to you, as an humble token of 
regard, and subscribe myself, 

Yours in Christ, 

J. DITZLER. 
Longview, Louisville, Ky., 1880. 



CHAPTER I. 

Introduction. 

Dr. T. O. Summers justly complains to Bishop Andrew 
of the many trashy works on baptism. Eev. J. D. Hud- 
son, of Alabama, does the same, regretting the common- 
place repetitions of the various compilations on this sub- 
ject. While Drs. M. Stuart, Rice, Rosser, Chapman, Seiss, 
Hibbard, E. Beecher, Edwards, Bishop Merrell, and Sum- 
mers have done excellent service, it can not be stated that 
they have thrown any new light on the subject, and it 
really stands where it was left by Lightfoot in the seven- 
teenth century. We will have occasion to point out im- 
portant facts on this subject on many occasions. As a 
sample of the carelessness of writers and their indifference 
to the progress of investigation, we feel it to be our duty 
to select one sample page from the work of Dr. Summers 
himself. We should not do this but for his repeating it in 
editions that ought to have corrected the blunders, espe- 
cially when the bishops had honored his book as our stand- 
ard on baptism. In the "New and Revised Edition" of 
1878, from a revised edition of June 6, 1874, after we had 
published correct reports of those authors, Dr. Summers 
in one single page (222) thus copies some authorities: 

BAPTIDZO. 

"Gazes: brecho, pluno, louo, antlo." This is a mere 
scrap of Gazes's definition, yet the same may be found in 
a host of compilations. Turn now to our list of lexicons 

(5) 



and see how defective is the above. He reports Scapula 
as saying it means " to dip." He does not say so. He 
reports him as saying that it means "to dye." This 
is preposterous. He says Stephanus gives "dip." He 
does not. He thus reports Schleusner : " To plunge, im- 
merse ; to cleanse, wash, purify with water, etc." Turn to 
my list and see how defective is this as a citation of the 
great German. 

He quotes Suidas as defining it, "To sink, plunge, 
immerse, wet, wash, cleanse, purify." Suidas does not 
define the word, and this is simply repeating the blunders 
of former compilations. These are only a part of the er- 
rors of a part of one page! Is not a text-book accurate 
at least in all citations and texts most desirable? 

Gale, Booth, Carson, Cox, E. Beecher, Conant, Dale, 
Moses Stuart profess to treat the subject philologically , as 
also A. Campbell, Prof. Ripley, and Ingham of London. 
Conant being so favorably surrounded excelled all men 
in collecting classic occurrences of baptidzo. Dale stands 
next in point of merit there, and before all others in his 
research in patristic literature on Mode, though of little 
value; for after the third century, not to say the close of 
the first, small is the help we get philologically, save of 
the few whose work as translators compelled them to be 
philological and not so dogmatic, not to say superstitious. 
"While Dr. Dale did much in Latin and Greek literatures 
we think he failed as a philologist in toto, as will be abun- 
dantly shown when we come to the classics on bapto and 
baptidzo. 

The utterly unscientific method always followed on this 
subject by both sides may well account for the unsettled 
state of the controversy. Long delay in the correct and 
complete solution of a disturbing question is not proof 



INTRODUCTION. 7 

that the friends of truth and Christian fraternity may not 
hope for a complete solution. 

To the bishops, the many ministers of both the great 
wings of Methodism, many Presbyterian and Congrega- 
tional ministers, who for ten years past have urged us to 
publish the result of our labors and researches on this 
question, we return our grateful thanks. Our delay has 
been unavoidable from 1869, but afforded opportunity to 
incorporate refutations of the most recent blunders of 
many authors, and to add the facts developed by Max 
Miiller confirming the views and methods always main- 
tained by us on the science of language. 

It has cost us much pains to adapt the work to both 
the learned and the unlearned. To do this we have kept 
the quotations that are in the languages in foot-notes as 
well as some more elaborate criticisms, so as not to im- 
pede the plain English scholar, and yet enable him to see 
the force of the most learned arguments if he choses to 
read the notes. 

It will be seen that we give prominence to the ancient 
versions very far beyond other works on this subject, for 
most just reasons. Our opponents have attached the 
greatest importance to this field. It will be seen by com- 
parison that as yet the field had not been touched, com- 
paratively, by the one side — excessively misused by the 
other. 

It will be seen how lexicons were almost totally mis- 
quoted, the original generally not given, and the great 
masters, as a rule, wholly ignored, or so indifferently cited 
as to leave the reader in total ignorance of what they said. 
Many samples will be presented. In Oriental languages 
we produce from their original works the great masters, 
Schindler, Buxtorf, Castell, Fiirst, Leigh, etc.; in Greek 



8 BAPTISM. 

classics, Passow, Host, Palm, Pape, as the most accurate 
and learned and recent; Schneider, Gazes, Wahl, Schleus- 
ner, earlier; and among the older lexicons, classic and 
biblical, Stephanus, Suicer, Stokius, etc. 

We flatter ourselves that we have exhibited the exact 
use of classic Greek. We have aimed to point out its 
abuses and cited authorities in abundance on such mat- 
ters. In philology, in the science of languages, in the dis- 
covery of primary meanings, the classic Greek is of vast 
importance. The difference between baptidzo as a clas- 
sic and religious word we have aimed to make so clear 
that only very willful stupidity can reject the evidences. 

Since all my manuscripts were ready for the press 
(1872-1875) the Carrollton debate occurred between J.R. 
Graves, LL.D., and myself, and was published by the 
Baptist House in Memphis, Tenn., under the eye and in 
the same house where the doctor edits his paper, The 
Baptist. It is with regret that we have to expose the 
astounding conduct of our opponent in that debate. Af- 
ter I had written out my speeches, as agreed, and left 
them with the publisher, Dr. Mayfield, and left for Texas, 
Dr. Graves took out my speeches — on my return I saw 
him with them — and rewrote all of his. This was done 
after we both had our names, February 15, 1876, sub- 
scribed to the declaration that it was a correct report 
of the debate. As the phonographer failed utterly to get 
my speeches, speaking so rapidly, I had to write them 
out from my notes. All will see that much of minor im- 
portance and nearly all repartee would be lost — unavoid- 
ably so. After thus subscribing ourselves, and after he 
had professedly published his speeches on Mode in his 
paper, Dr. G. took my manuscripts and rewrote all of his, 
adding as many as six, eight, ten, and even twelve pages 



INTRODUCTION. 9 

of new matter at a time in single speeches, not a line of 
which was used during debate, and leaving out what he 
did say wherever exposed. Whatever he says of cove- 
nants is just the reverse of the facts in toto. As I re- 
turned from Texas through Memphis I examined parts of 
several of his speeches on Mode — the fourteenth and 
fifteenth, besides much already added from the eighth on. 
I sat down in their room and added a few pages to my 
twelfth and thirteenth speeches to meet some of his addi- 
tions from the sixth to twelfth, and rewrote my fourteenth 
and fifteenth in reply to his, making them far longer than 
half-hour speeches can be made; added several pages to 
the sixteenth on Mode, and never was permitted to see his 
seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth speeches on Mode, 
nor any thereafter, not even the proof-sheets. Not a page 
after my seventeenth speech in the book was proofed by 
me. In these he makes his daring assertions he dared not 
make when I was there. He purposely delayed his man- 
uscripts under various pretenses till a public debate at 
Stanford, Ky., April 2d to 9th, called me away. I wrote 
for the proofs of our speeches, but neither his nor mine 
were ever sent to me. One of my speeches of half hour 
I rewrote, making it a reply to three or four he had slip- 
ped in without my knowledge of the enormous changes. 
The seventeenth, though I never got his seventeenth as 
rewritten by himself, I prepared in McKenzie, Tenn., 
where I stopped on my way, and where I wrote for a re- 
turn of my last two speeches to recast them, in view of 
what he might do in his seventeenth, eighteenth, and nine- 
teenth speeches; but they telegraphed they were nearly in 
print and would be next day. They were not for yet two 
weeks. Innumerable typographical errors blot the work, 
and in places where my own comments were made and 



10 BAPTISM. 

carefully placed in brackets, the brackets are removed 
and I charged by Dr. G. with trying to impose the brack- 
eted words on the people as my own ! We will attend to 
many of his bold and reckless assertions in this work. 

In that debate we did all we could to force or draw him 
out on Baptist succession, on history, or on the ancient 
versions, and on them all he was dumb as an oyster. Yet 
in the published debate he fills whole speeches with a reck- 
less mass of crudities, defies me, and challenges refutation. 
Well he knew there would be in the book no answer, be- 
cause I would never see it till the book should be in print ! 
He was afflicted with a painful soreness of throat, spoke 
very slowly — on an average not over one word to my 
two. Hence his opening speech on Mode, on which he 
was one hour and ten minutes — extra time allowed to 
finish his points — makes but twelve pages and six lines. 
His next full half-hour speech fills four pages and a third 
solid. Compare these with those half-hour speeches that 
have eighteen, twenty, twenty-two, twenty-seven pages, 
much of it finer print, and all can see the truth. Again, 
let any one examine his first eight or even ten speeches on 
Mode and see how pointedly they are refuted; his four- 
teenth and fifteenth, that I caught him slipping in "on the 
sly" as I came from Texas; see their exposure, and he 
will see enough to prove that I never saw the remainder 
of his speeches. 



BAPTISM — ADMINISTRATOR — DESIGN. 1 1 



CHAPTER II. 

Baptism — Administrator — Design. 

In preparing a book on the mode of baptism, it is not 
deemed necessary to treat of the administrator* of bap- 
tism, because: First. All Protestant churches are practi- 
cally agreed on this subject, whatever may be the abstract 
theories of some parties. As a rule only the ministers of 
all these bodies baptize. Second. So far as theory or 
practice goes, the New Testament does not throw any light 
upon it of a positive character. We know not who bap- 
tized the converts of Pentecost (Acts ii, 41) nor the first 

v Gentile converts (Acts x, 44-47). We never will know 
i^ho did the baptizing among Christ's earlier disciples 
(John iii, 22-25; iv, 2) before he had selected his apostles. 
Compare Mark i, 14, 16-20; Luke iv and v entire, and vi, 
13-16. There is no record where any one of the twelve 
apostles ever baptized any person ; and Paul, the one 
chosen out of the due order — the fourteenth one— really 
boasts of having baptized only the few named in 1 Corinth- 
ians i, 14-17, in person. Third. The fathers allowed of 

. baptism by laymen as well as by ministers, yet mainly the 

N ministers baptized. 

As to the design of baptism, we will treat of that in a 
separate work, the errors in the design being too grave and 
numerous to be fully exposed and the true import of bap- 

"tism set forth in a convenient volume. But the real, the 
scriptural design we propose to give, as it will shed light 
on the mode as well as on the subjects of the rite. 



12 BAPTISM. 

The immersionists hold that " immersion was the bap- 
tism commanded by Christ and practiced under the apos- 
tles." Of the most prominent writers of this class we 
may Dame in Europe and the United States, Drs. Gale, 
Carson, Cox, Hinton, Fuller, Booth, Conant, Mell, Rip- 
ley, Ingham,* A. Campbell, L. B. Wilkes, J. R. Graves, 
Brents (G. W., of Tennessee). These in substance rely 
on the following assumptions te sustain this hypothesis, 
namely, that 

1. Baptism is an anglicized Greek word, baptisma 
(JlanTiff/ia), from the verb baptidzo, and it is derived from 
the root bapto, and has a specific meaning which is im- 
merse, dip, plunge. They assert that, 

2. This is sustained by the unanimous testimony of all 
ancient and modern Greek lexicons or dictionaries, which 
do always give immerse, dip, plunge as the meaning of 
baptidzo, and never sprinkle or pour. 

3. The Greek literature of nearly two thousand years 
fully sustains this, and is the only real standard of appeal. 

4. All translations, ancient and modern, support this 
position by rendering bapto and baptidzo by words that 
mean to immerse, never by words meaning to sprinkle or 
pour; that the ancient versions being made by the most 
competent of all witnesses, are decisive of this question. 

5. Baptidzo and bapto, its root, are translations of the 
Hebrew words tabal and tzeba. that always mean to im- 
merse, dip, or plunge. 

6. That these facts are admitted also by all the eminent 

pedobaptist critics and scholars; but they set up tradi- 

* Ingham, 1865, a very exhaustive work, compiled merely, has it 
thus: 1. Lexicons; 2. Examples, especially in classic usage; 3. Ver- 
sions, especially ancient — e. g. Syriac, etc.; ... 9. The word can not 
represent actions as distinct as pouring, sprinkling, and immersing or 
dipping. (Pages 27, 38, 575.) 



BAPTISM — ADMINISTRATOR — DESIGN. 13 

tions and the authority of the church as the grand reason 
for affusion, claiming the right to change the ordinances 
of the church. 

7. That the practice of the early centuries of the 
church was altogether by immersion, and that no other 
practice was allowed till about the thirteenth century, 
save in case of sickness, and such cases were illegal, not 
" ecclesiastical." 

8. That the prepositions used in connection with these 
words, such as en, eis, connecting them with the element — 
baptize "in;" went into the water; and eh, apo, out of, 
from, indicating emersion, " helping out of the water " — 
strengthen these arguments. 

9. That the allusions to baptism in the New Testament, 
such as Romans vi, 3, 4; Colossians ii, 11, 12; 1 Cor- 
inthians x, 1, 2 ; Hebrews x, 22, clearly demonstrate im- 
mersion as the only apostolic practice, designed to sym- 
bolize the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. 

The places where baptism is represented as occurring — 
in Jordan, "in iEnon near to Salim, because there was 
much water there"; Philip and the eunuch, etc., addi- 
tionally strengthen this view. 

To give force and certainty to these assumptions all 
immersionists hold to certain theories as absolutely set- 
tled, undeniable; viz: 

1. That in a given period and summary of literature, 
not at all commensurate with the actual literature of a 
language, and all dating centuries later than the origin of 
the language, and later than much of its best literature, 
the prevailing meaning of a word at any such later period 
is its primary meaning ! 

2. That if a word ever means, or implies, to dip, 
plunge, immerse, it can never mean, or apply to, sprinkle 



14 BAPTISM. 

or pour; and if to sprinkle or pour, it can never mean 
dip, plunge, immerse. 

3. That wash, purify, cleanse are meanings of baptidzo 
in the New Testament and Apocrypha because derived 
from immerse. Hence the New Testament often alludes 
to baptism as a washing, cleansing, etc. (Eph. v, 26 ; Titus 
iii. 5; Acts xxii, 16; Heb. x, 22, etc.), while all ancient 
versions render baptize by wash, cleanse, purify, etc., as 
well as more recent ones in the sixteenth century.* 

4. That classic Greek is the same as the New Testa- 
ment Greek, and that baptidzo is to be explained and its 
New Testament use determined by the classics ! 

5. The less critical also advance the following absurdi- 
ties as canons of interpretation, viz : That to sprinkle an 
object is " to scatter it in drops." Hence baptidzo can not 
mean to sprinkle, to pour upon, unless the object is invari- 
ably "scattered in drops." A. Campbell, G. W. Brents, 
and J. R. Graves adhere to this. 

6. A number of immersionists maintain that if bap- 
tidzo means to immerse, sprinkle, pour, then no one is bap- 
tized until all three of these acts are accomplished upon 
him! We may hope that this silly sophistry has ceased 
to be repeated, especially as A. Campbell renders baptidzo 
by some twenty or more different words, Conant by four- 
teen, etc. ; while drown, intoxicate, soak, make drunk figure 
in all immersion works as among the meanings. 

7. They hold that dip, immerse, plunge are all syn- 
onymous in meaning. J. R. Graves, Alexander Camp- 
bell, Wilkes, etc. 

We shall subject all these assumptions to a careful 
examination and test of facts. 

* Syriac, amad, secho ; Arabic, amada, gasala ; Latin, lavo ; German, 
waschen.; etc. 



ORIGIN AND DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 15 



CHAPTER III. 
Origin and Design of Baptism. 

If the origin and design of baptism has ever been 
explained, its real propriety presented, we have never met 
with it. Nor have we ever seen an explanation of the 
relation between the washing [baptism] with water and 
the cleansings effected by blood in Exodus, Leviticus, 
and Numbers. Tracing Christian baptism through pros- 
elyte baptism as Yossius, Witsius, Lightfoot, etc. do, does 
not bring us any nearer the matter. The real origin and 
design of baptism remains unexplained. The careless 
and excessively loose treatment it has received may well 
account for its horrid distortions. 

Every rite must have some reason in it in the element 
used, if elements are used, and in the then current force 
of the word as used by the writers or speakers. Hence 
we must look for the origin of this rite in the religious 
import of the word wash (rachats in Hebrew), cleanse, 
and in the symbolism of water. 

Among all nations, in every European language, Egyp- 
tian, and those of Asia Minor, water represented inno- 
cence and purity — cleansing. Cleansing made the party 
innocent. The outward symbolized and was declarative 
of his innocence, whether actually cleansed from actual 
guilt or really innocent. 

In Homer's day, a thousand years before Christ, it was 
an old custom for parties before going to prayer to wash 



16 * BAPTISM. 

themselves at the hoary sea, or besprinkle themselves 
with clean water before praying to Minerva (Athene.)* 
They sprinkled with living water candidates for the Eleu- 
sis. In Ovid, Homer, Diogenes, Virgil, Porphyry, He- 
rodotus, etc. these washings are often alluded to in con- 
nection with devotional exercises. Originally symbolic 
of innocence, purity, absence of guilt, it came to be cor- 
rupted in use as a real agency in purification, as an expia- 
tion of crime. To this base use of it Tertullian alludes 
at length. 

In the earliest times, as Homer relates the earlier hea- 
then customs, nearer the purer days of their religion, these 
washings and cleansings were symbolic of the object of 
their prayers and devotions — purity by which they became 
innocent. Hence they besprinkled themselves with water 
as the first step. It was not then initiatory into any body. 

In the Bible water symbolizes innocence and purity — 
the one being implied in the other : " I will wash my hands 
in innocency; so will I compass thine altar, O Lord" 
(Ps. xxvi, 6; lxxiii, 13). f Here it anticipates the object 
of devotion — purity and innocence before God — symbol- 
izes that object. Pilot, recognizing this Jewish use of wa- 
ter, washed his hands in token of innocence as to Christ's 
blood. 

As religious innocence, implying purity, can be had only 
through the merit of " the blood of sprinkling " (1 Peter i, 
2; Heb. x, 22; ix, 13-19; xii, 24; Num. xix, 9-13) applied 
by the Spirit, the water comes to represent the Spirit by 

* In the full citation in Clemens Alexandrinus where the passage is 
given in full. 

tin this Psalm, lxxiii, 13, "I have cleansed my heart in vain, and 
washed my hands in innocency." We must not forget the constant fact 
'that the water and Spirit are named or implied together throughout the 
Bible — one inward, the other outward. 



ORIGIN AND DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 17 

which we are actually cleansed as to its mode or action, 
as well as its real design. Ps. li, 1-10; Is. i, 16; iv, 4; 
xliv, 3 ; Ezek. xvi, 9 ; xxxvi, 25-27 ; Eph. v, 25, 26 ; Titus 
iii, 5, 6; Heb. x, 22; with Matt, iii, 11, 12; Acts x, 41-44. 
" Can any man forbid water that these should not be bap- 
tized who have received the Holy Spirit as well as we?" 
The constant association of the water in all these, as well 
as innumerable other passages, shows that the water was 
always symbolic of the innocence effected by the Spirit's 
application of Christ's blood, and of nothing but that. It 
was not initiatory into any thing. Baptism is symbol and 
nothing else. 

In Moses's day the connection of the water and the 
blood — as blood was the groundwork of all religious inno- 
cence before God, the procuring cause — is striking. When 
Moses had led the people out of Egypt, he consecrated 
the priests and people with blood (Ex. xxviii, 41 ; xxix, 
16-22), and sprinkled vessels, people, the book, and taber- 
nacle with blood (Heb. ix, 17-22), and ordained that the 
priests and people wash or be cleansed with water. Ex. 
xxix, 4; xxx, 18-22; Lev. viii, 4-6; xv, xvi; Num. viii, 
7 ; xix, 13-22. When David repented he alluded to water, 
to washing as a preliminary process (Ps. li, 2-10) as well 
as to the sprinkling with blood (verse 7, " Purge me with 
hyssop"), where it is a spiritual washing prayed for, as all 
will admit. The Greek, Syriac, and Latin read, " Sprinkle 
me with hyssop." Hebrews x, 22, unites the blood as the 
real work, the water as the symbol of cleansing — " having 
our hearts sprinkled — our bodies washed, etc." — i. e. sym- 
bolically cleansed, as Aaron's was (Lev. viii, 6). 

When Moses washed Aaron and his sons with water 
(Lev. viii, 6) it was not initiatory but preliminary. He 
was first washed, and after this all that occurs throughout 
2 



18 BAPTISM. 

the long chapter, for eight days, occurred before he was a 
priest (chapter ix, 1-12). If baptism was a door into the 
church, all this was strange. Stranger still, as they bap- 
tized themselves every day before performing their duty. 
Did they initiate themselves into the church every day? 

When God called people to repent (Is. i, 16), washing 
as a preliminary process, symbolic of purity, is alluded to 
in the spiritual washing : " Wash you, make you clean" 
(Is. i, 16). In Exodus xxx, 18, a laver is made for Aaron 
and his sons to " wash with water" thereat — " out of it," in 
the Greek and Hebrew. But what was the import, the 
design, the symbolism of the cleansing with water when the 
party was sprinkled with blood, etc. for a purification ? In 
Leviticus xiv, 7, 8, 51-53, a person is sprinkled seven times 
with blood, and is pronounced clean when sprinkled. After 
this he is "to wash with water" \hudati\. The washing 
with water could only be declarative of the typical cleans- 
ing effected by the sprinkled blood, as Hebrews x, 22, 
also. The house was sprinkled seven times with blood and 
water, the water answering to that of the person cleansed, 
washed, sanctified (Num. viii, 7 ; Eph. v, 26). "And thus 
shalt thou do unto them to cleanse them, sprinkle water of 
purifying upon them." "Sanctify and cleanse by the wash- 
ing of water by the word." Some assert that this was with 
water mingled with ashes of a burnt heifer (Num. xix, 
9-22). But that latter rite was not introduced till between 
nineteen and thirty- seven years after this. See Numbers, 
chapter xx, in this connection also. In the case of the 
water of separation, of Numbers xix, the defiled was to 
"purify himself with it." If he failed to do so he was 
unclean, defiled the tabernacle, and was therefore to be 
cut off. Why? "Because the water of separation was 
not sprinkled upon him, he shall be unclean." 



ORIGIN AND DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 19 

The Targum of Jonathan is very emphatic on Numbers 
xix, 13, where the words " shall not purify himself" (verse 
13) read "shall not sprinkle himself" — "Since the waters 
\nioii\ of sprinkling were not sprinkled upon him, he is 
unclean ; as yet his pollution is upon him until he besprink- 
les himself" The Persic is very much the same. Paul 
(Heb. ix, 13) agrees perfectly with this view: " Sprinkling 
the unclean, sanctifieth unto the purifying of the flesh." In 
this case again the water betokened the typical cleansing — 
was declarative of its work. But in Numbers xix, 18, a tent 
and vessels of the ministry are purified by only sprinkling; 
but the person, after being sprinkled "for a purification 
for sin," was to wash his garments and his person (hudati) 
with water, and be [thus declared] clean, and if unclean 
it was " because the water of separation was not sprinkled 
upon him" (13, 20). The water in all these cases be- 
tokens the innocence secured by the blood of sprinkling — 
symbolic innocence- — made actually innocent by Christ's 
blood. In all this the clear understanding of the typical 
baptisms when first introduced will enable us to see the 
real design of baptism, as well as to understand who are 
proper subjects of the rite. It opens the way to rid the 
public mind of the awful abuses that confuse the mind and 
blind the judgment of men. Initiatory rite, door into the 
church, sign of death, burial, and resurrection, communi- 
cating grace, for remission of sins— all these horrid dis- 
tortions of the beautiful symbol are soattered to the four 
winds by a clear historic insight into the rite. 

Now these " divers baptisms, " as Paul calls them (Heb. 
ix, 10), different kinds of baptisms; some with mere 
blood ; some with mere water sprinkled on them ; some 
with blood and running water administered to men, 
houses, tents, vessels ; some with water mingled with the 



20 BAPTISM. 

ashes, were all to effect, declare, typical purity. The per- 
son had to wash after he was purified to declare and sym- 
bolize the fact. The whole truth then was, Christ's 
blood — " blood of sprinkling" (Heb. x, 22; ix, 14; xii, 
24; 1 Pet. 1, 2) — was the only real cleansing from sin. 
The blood of animals typically cleansed from guilt or 
sin, and the water symbolized to the person that he 
was cleansed. 

We see in all this the origin and design of baptism. 
All these sprinklings Paul calls baptisms — "washings " in 
our version. But all parties agree that the (rachats, louo, 
nipto) washing also of persons was baptism. And it is 
the one we have most to do with. It was, like the rest, 
wholly symbolic. That was its entire religious meaning 
and design. Infants were subjects of baptism in its orig- 
inal institution. As they purified by sprinkling them, 
Joel ii, 15-17, sufficiently shows that infants, "those that 
suck the breasts" were a part of the " congregation " 
(Greek, eJcklesia, church) sanctified by being "sprinkled 
with water." 

They are born innocent, free from guilt, however 
tainted by the transmission of that distemper, as Mr. A. 
Campbell calls it, that ruined our race. As the blood of 
Christ covers their condition, and they are innocent and 
in a saved condition — their condition, the status to which 
conversion brings aliens (Matt, xviii, 1-5; Eph. ii, 13- 
19) — they of all persons are most properly entitled to 
baptism. Water does not primarily symbolize the Spirit, 
but innocence, then religious purity which makes inno- 
cence, because to an alien or sinner the Spirit applies 
the merit of Christ's blood to the actual washing away 
of actual sins. Therefore, water or baptism of water, 
symbolizes the means, the Spirit's application, to effect 



ORIGIN AND DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 21 

this innocence or purity. In 2 Maccabees i, 18, 21, 31, 
33, we read that when the Jews got the opportunity to re- 
form and attend to their religious duties they began by a 
general outward purification. " We proposed to keep the 
purifying of the temple." Hence, "Nehemiah com- 
manded the priests to sprinkle the wood and the things 
laid thereon with water." They prayed that the sacrifices 
might be sanctified" (verse 26). The water was (verse 
31) poured on the great stones; therewith "Nehemiah 
purified the sacrifices." It is not to be forgotten that as 
the Israelites passed the sea they were all baptized, in- 
fants and adults (1 Cor. x, 1, 2); to which David seems to 
allude most forcibly (Ps. lxviii, 9) when God "confirms" 
his church or "heritage" when he sent a "plentiful rain" 
on them. 

It is not surprising therefore that John came baptizing 
that Christ, who was to thoroughly purge his floor, actu- 
ally cleanse, purify, and save the people, might be made 
manifest to Israel. It had all these centuries of prece- 
dents in its favor, that when John called the people to 
baptism it involved and implied to them the need and 
desire to seek purity. Is it possible it could ever change 
its import? Never. Hence today it is in the name of 
the Trinity involved in the work of our purification, mak- 
ing us innocent. 



22 BAPTISM. 



CHAPTER IV. 

Baptism with Water. 

Washing with water was familiar to all people. Mode 
was not implied. Washing is most constantly the effect 
of affusion all around us. The rain washes houses, trees, 
plants, herbs, grass from the dust or whatever may soil 
that it can remove. People wash their hands where 
they dip one into the water to apply it to both, rubbing. 
One may pour it on the hands of another, as is often 
done, and as was the custom in the days of Elijah (2 
Kings iii, 11). People wash their faces and bodies Avith 
water. Baths are had both where the body is partially 
put into the water and where water is showered from 
above, or, as in olden times, a servant pours water over 
the body. In all these ways persons and things are 
washed with water. Such a process the Greeks would 
express by lousetai en hudati (" wash with water ") ; nipsetai 
en hudati; or simply omitting the en ("with"), hudati, 
("with water"). As the Jews had been used to these 
expressions in the Pentateuch, and for wash we have bap- 
tize in the later Greek writers, hence in the New Testa- 
ment it is not surprising that there we have this form so 
constantly recurring. 

" I indeed baptize you with water. He shall baptize 

you with the Holy Ghost."* So Matthew, Mark, John 

• Matt, iii, 11 ; Mark i, 8; John i, 31, 32. The Greek in these places 
is ev vdari, en hudati. In Mark i, 8, however, the best Greek MSS. have 
no en. 



BAPTISM WITH WATER. 23 

and Luke and Peter and Christ declare.* This is the 
historic and comprehensive way of narrating it — baptism 
was with water. Water was the instrument used with which 
people were baptized. This language declares the general, 
the universal practice of baptism with water. "He 
shall baptize with (en) the Holy Spirit." Acts x, 45 : " On 
the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy 
Ghost." It fell on them (verse 44). Now, says Peter, 
telling this to "the apostles and brethren" (Acts xi, 1), 
"As I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on 
us at the beginning. Then remembered I the word of the 
Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water, 
but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost" (Acts 
xi, 15-17). Notice here, first, they are baptized with 
water; second, they are baptized with the Holy Spirit; 
third, the mode of the all-essential baptism is given. It 
was "poured on them." It "fell on them." So in the 
Bible it is represented as "shed forth," "poured upon." 
It is often called " anointing," " unction." f All believers 
received this sealing power of the Spirit. % By one Spirit 
are we all baptized into one body." Christ baptizes 
us with the Spirit. Cornelius's house was thus baptized; 
that is, "it was poured out on them." It "fell on 
them " — they were baptized with it. 

In Acts i, 5, it was poured on them. Some say it filled 
the house, and they were immersed in it. To immerse in 
an element is to put the object into it. Here it is claimed 

•Luke iii, 16; Acts i, 5; xi, 17. In these cases it is simply vdarc, 
hudati. Peter tells us " the Lord said " the same (Acts xi, 15, 16). 

t Ezek. xviii, 31; xxxvii, 5-14; Jer. xxxi, 33; Is. xxxii, 15; xliv, 3; 
Prov. i, 23; Joel ii, 28; Acts i, 1-5, 33; ii, 28; x, 44, 45; xi, 14-17; 
1 Peter i, 12 ; 1 John ii, 20, 27, 28 ; v, 6, 7, 10 ; 2 Cor. i, 21 ; Acts iv, 27 ; 
Titus iii, 5, 6. 

% Titus iii, 5-7; Eph. i, 12-14; 1 Cor. xii, 3-13; and the above 
texts. 



24 BAPTISM. 

the Spirit filled the house where they were assembled. In 
that case it would overwhelm them, but not dip them, 
surely, or immerse them. But it is untrue that it filled 
*the house. It does not say so. The sound as of a rush- 
ing mighty wind filled the house. So states the text. It 
(the sound) filled it. But in all the other places there 
is no such fact. And in all cases the Spirit was poured on 
them. The Spirit thus acting baptized them, Christ being 
the baptizer. Isaiah xliv, 3; Zechariah xii, 10; Joel ii, 
28, of the Old Testament; Peter, Acts xi, 15, 16; Luke, 
in Acts x, 44, 45; Paul, Titus iii, 5, 6, tell us the Spirit 
was poured out on the people — six witnesses. Matthew 
iii, 11; Mark i, 8; Luke iii, 16; John i, 33; Acts i, 5; 
Peter, Acts xi, 15, 16; John the Baptizer, in Matthew iii, 
11, etc.; Christ, Acts xi, 16; Paul, 1 Corinthians xii, 13 — 
eight New Testament writers and speakers call this pour- 
ing on of the Spirit on the people, baptizing them with the 
Spirit. Is. xliv, 3: "I will pour water upon him that is 
thirsty " symbolizes the words in the same verse, " I will 
pour my Spirit upon thy seed." It was the " I baptize 
you with water, with the Spirit," of the above texts. 

But it is answered, Is the Spirit literally poured upon 
men? Is it not present every where, filling all space, 
ubiquitous, above, around us? How then can it be poured 
on us when it is present every where ? To this we reply : 

1. Yes; but if it holds good as an argument, the possi- 
bility of the Spirit being literally poured on us, shed upon 
us, etc., or against the propriety of such language, how 
much more is it against the idea or possibility of being 
dipped in the Spirit ? How can people be immersed in the 
Spirit from this standpoint? To be dipped implies not 
merely putting in, partially or wholly, but being with- 
drawn. How could thev be immersed into that in which 



BAPTISM WITH WATER. 25 

already they were enveloped ? Suppose people were already 
entirely under the water of a lake or river, how could they 
be dipped into it, when already enveloped in the water? 
So this dodge leaves the objector in a worse predicament 
than ever. 

2. Hence the Spirit's influence or operation on man's 
moral nature is repeatedly called in the New Testament 
baptizing with the Spirit. It is called baptism. 

3. The Bible throughout designates this act or work 
of the Spirit, baptizing them with the Spirit, pouring the 
Spirit on them, as just seen.* 

4. Then, why do the prophets and apostles represent 
the Spirit as " poured" on the people in the baptismal act? 
A good reason must underlie such language. First, there 
was a grand reason for the action of the Spirit being com- 
pared to the wind (John iii, 8) ; second, there was a reason 
for representing us as begotten by the Spirit — " born of the 
Spirit" — we receive character, impress from it; third, why 
is it often represented as "an unction," "an anointing"? 
Because the wind literally does act as named, known by its 
effects, so is every one born of the Spirit. Because those 
"anointed" have the symbolizing oil literally poured on 
them, therefore we are anointed by the Spirit. Because 
seals of state were literally placed upon documents to give 
impress, character, passport, acceptance, we are "sealed 
with the Spirit of promise " (Eph. i, 13 ; 2 Cor. i, 22). Be- 
cause in outward baptism the water was literally poured 
on those baptized, they are said to be baptized with the 

•To those who, like Stokius in his lexicon, assert that baptidzo is 
used to express the abundance of the Spirit, or its gifts, though he tells 
us it was by pouring, we reply that x&u, cheo, to pour, is often so used 
in the classics and the Bible, and with certain prepositions it represents 
floods even, abundance, bounteousness. But where does dip or immerse 
represent these ideas ? 



26 BAPTISM. 

Spirit, it is said to be poured on them. The water was 
a symbol, as was the oil a symbol from other standpoints. 
Hence the objection brings out the clearest argument pos- 
sible. 

No intelligent person is willing to rest a good cause on 
mere allusions, much less upon one or two highly-wrought 
metaphors that allude to baptism, whether it be by that 
of the Spirit or of water. Baptizing, eis, epi (Mark i, 9 ; 
Matt, iii, 13), en, at Jordan, in iEnon, because there was 
much water there ; and Acts viii, 38 ; Romans vi, 4, give 
us no historic basis, no fact, as to the action or mode. 
A. Campbell states it only as an " inference " as to the 
eunuch'. He can't say he was immersed. Dr. Wilkes 
puts it at best only as a "hypothesis." * We now propose 
to give a historic basis on this question, and facts that 
will clearly account also for the going to Jordan, iEnon, 
etc. Surely the ordinary reasons assigned are absurd. 
Dr. Barclay (immersionist) in City of the Great King, 
Elder Wilkes, and Baptists as well, tell us of four acres 
of pools of water in Jerusalem from forty-five to forty- 
seven feet deep in the centers, showing plenty of water in 
which to immerse, in which the three thousand of Pente- 
cost (Acts ii, 41) could have been plunged. Well, then, 
why did people go in great numbers from thence to Jor- 
dan for baptism if quantity or sufficiency of water for the 
mode of baptism was the motive? Again, why leave the 
Jordan and go to iEnon if that was the question? Again, 
as it is only in connection with John's baptism we ever 
read of Jordan and iEnon as to baptism, if the people 
had to go to Jordan and ^Enon for a sufficiency of water 
for the baptismal act, how came no one to go to either 
place in all the sixty-seven years of baptisms under the 
* Louisville Debate, page 582. 



BAPTISM WITH WATER. 27 

apostles? John's lasted only some six months. If John's 
subjects did go thence for the purpose of getting sufficient 
water for the mode, it is the strongest possible proof 
against immersion in the apostolic age. 

1. John baptized at first "beyond Jordan," "in Beth- 
any"* (John i, 28; x, 42), where Christ afterward dwelt 
for a time, " into the place where John at first baptized " 
(John x, 40). 

2. He next baptized at (epi) the Jordan (Matt, iii, 13). 
Luke reads "about Jordan" (Luke iii, 3). Mark has it 
eis, at, in, or into (Mark i, 9); en, "at," "in" "63/," 
"about" (verse 5). 

That Mark's en does not indicate mode, but merely the 
place, location, in which the baptism was performed, is 
evident from the fact that where the action of the baptism 
is named it is in Mark "with water (Mark i, 8), not in 
water. And the correct texts of Tischendorf, Tregelles, 
etc. have no en in Mark i, 8, in the Greek either. That 
it does not indicate mode but merely place is further evi- 
dent from Matthew's words, "at Jordan," Luke's, "about 
Jordan." The Hebrews stood still "in the midst of 
Jordan" (Josh, iii, 17); " stand still in Jordan" (Josh, iii, 
8); "into Jordan" (verse 11), all on dry land, just as the 
people "came up out of Jordan" — repeated some five 
times (Josh, iv, 16-21). "The Israelites pitched (en) 
by a fountain" (1 Sam. xxix, 1). "Get thee hence, and 
hide thyself (en) the brook Cherith" (1 Kings xvii, 3). 
In Ezekiel i, 3; iii, 15; x, 15, 20, 22, in the Hebrew in (be) 
and at (at) the river interchange over and again for the 
same thing. But in Joshua the en (in) Jordan and into 

* In James's version it reads Bethabara, but in Baptist Union Bible, 
A. Campbell's, and Anderson's and Wilson's immersion versions it reads 
Bethany, as well as in all ancient MSS. and versions, and is the only 
correct reading. 



28 BAPTISM. 

Jordan are expressly limited and defined (Josh. iii, 8) by 
epi, at or by the Jordan (Josh, iii, 8). Epi is there used 
as the limitation of en or eis. So the en and eis of Mark 
i, 5, 9, are limited and denned by Matthew's epi. And 
some manuscripts of Joshua iii, 8, expressly use eis for epi 
in that verse: "As ye come eis (to) the water; " others, "As 
ye come epi (to) the water." * 

3. Every Jew baptized himself from once to two, 
three, four times a day in Christ's day (Mark vii, 3, 4; 
Luke xi, 38), with facts detailed in the laver argument. 
Did they all go to Jordan to find water enough for their 
baptism? We see in the laver argument that all Jews 
baptized daily, and baptized their furniture and their beds 
every day. When we are told of big cisterns twenty-two 
feet deep, sixteen or seventeen feet wide, that families had 
against the three, four, or five months of drouth every sea- 
son, and that they could immerse in them, we again refer 
you to Leviticus xi, 30-36; Numbers xix, 22; xxxi, 23; 
Leviticus xv entire, etc. as an utter refutation of that. 
And in the face of those facts would a man, his wife, their 
six, eight, ten children, and often six, eight, ten servants, 
male and female, daily immerse in the cistern and daily 
immerse their beds in it, then use the water for drinking, 
for cooking, and the like. Immersion theories require 
this. 

* Origen's Hexapla, in loc. So likewise epi and en interchange, e. g. 
Judith xii, 7, epi, at the fountain; some MSS. en, at, etc. 



BAPTISM OF PAUL (SAUL). 29 



CHAPTER V. 

Baptism of Paul (Saul). 

In Acts ix, 18, we read in the Greek Testament, "And 
standing np [he] was baptized." The facts show that 
while Saul was praying he kneeled on his face, a habit 
very common then. Christ in the garden " fell on his 
face, and prayed" (Matt, xxvi, 39), where Luke says he 
kneeled (xxii, 41). Cornelius fell at the apostle's feet to 
pray (Acts x, 25). The jailer "fell down before" the 
apostle and Silas (Acts xvi, 29). 1 Corinthians xiv, 25, 
shows it was the common habit. Saul had been praying 
in the deepest humility of spirit (Acts ix, 11). It was 
while in this attitude that his sins were washed away, 
in the act of prayer, and the Spirit received (Acts ix, 
16-18). Then he arose, stood up, and was baptized. So 
the other report of it (Acts xxii, 16): Arise, "standing 
up, be baptized, having washed away thy sins in calling 
on the name of the Lord." All ancient English versions — 
six in number — before James's read, "in calling on the 
name of the Lord."* Peter said to Cornelius (Acts x, 
26), " Stand up" (anasthsethi), and he helped him to stand 
up. 

Matt, iii, 13: " Jesus cometh \_epi f lrii\ to Jordan unto 
John, to be baptized." It was \epi\ at the Jordan, not 

• Kal avaoTag iftaTrTiod?}, kai anastas ebaptisthas. The Greek implies 
that while or in the act of standing he was baptized. There is no " and " 
(kai) in the Greek. Such a form of words shows he stood for the 
purpose of being baptized. 



30 BAPTISM. 

in or into it. Mark i, 9, has for this eis, at, into, by, in. 
Of eis Liddell & Scott's Greek Lexicon says its " radical 
signification is direction toward, motion to, on, or into" So 
say Kiihner, Buttman, Passow, Host, Palm, Pape — all 
modern critics. It is toward, mere, motion toward, to, on, 
or into. Hence the primary meaning is not into; that is a 
derived meaning resulting from the motion toward, etc. 
Joshua iii, 8, epi, at, to interchanges with eis, at, to. As eis 
means to, at primarily, and epi never implies into, but 
limits the object to mere location on, at, by, to, it settles 
this question. Though we could cite vast numbers of 
texts where eis means to, at, by — e. g. 1 Kings xviii, 19, 
"at Carmel" — yet let us take a few that limit it to Jor- 
dan, as this is a question about Jordan in Mark i, 9. 1 
Kings ii, 6: "Meet me [eis] at Jordan." 2 Kings ii, 6: 
" For the Lord hath sent me [eis] to Jordan." 2 Kings v, 
4 : " The sons of the prophets came (eis) to the Jordan and 
cut wood." Add a few more. 

Is. xxxvi, 2: "The king sent Rabshakeh from La- 
chish [eis] to Jerusalem" — not into it, for the city was not 
yet captured, and he remained outside by the potter's field, 
and they came out and met him there (verse 3). 2 Kings 
ii, 21 : " Went forth [eis] unto the spring of waters." 
Josh, iii, 16 : Eis, "toward the sea." Luke v, 4: " Launch 
out [eis~\ into the sea." Note it was a ship or boat already 
in the sea. In Mark i, 9, eis Iordanaen in the Peshito 
is bh? Yurdhnon, at Jordan — not [/e] into. Acts viii, 38, 
it is le, into, to, etc. Eom. vi, 4: "Into death" is [le], 
into. Wesley's version, in his notes, renders Mark i, 9, 
"at Jordan," just as he does Matthew iii, 13, "at Jor- 
dan." H. T. Anderson, immersionist, reads, "to Jordan" 
(Matt, iii, 13). 

In the above we have repeatedly the very words of Mark 



BAPTISM OF PAUL (SAUL). 31 

i, 9, which immersionists render "into the Jordan;" yet in 
not one of these eases does it allow of this meaning. As 
all the places where eis occurs with Jordan compel us to 
reject this rendering and accept at as the force of the word, 
and Matthew's epi, " at," settles it, we do not propose to 
surrender such facts to mere bravado. 

Again, the rendering of H. T. Anderson, immersion- 
ist most rigid; of the Bible of the Baptist Union ; and of 
T. J. Conant, all of whom render Mark i, 10, and Matthew 
iii, 6, "he came up immediately from \apo\ the water," 
confirms this. Apo can not apply to emergence. Hence 
Christ was not in nor under the water. The want of ac- 
curate knowledge of the Greek in James's day — 1607 to 
1610 — led them to suppose that apo meant at times out 
of, and the old lexicographers of the previous century so 
rendered it. No scholar will pretend now that it ever 
means " out of." Winer, Kiihner, Jelf, Robinson, Passow, 
Pape, Liddell & Scott, etc. have utterly dissipated that 
delusion. Hence Dr. T. J. Conant, the prince of Baptist 
scholars in Europe or America, though so intolerant of 
affusion for baptism, says, " It has been erroneously sup- 
posed that the same thing is stated in Matthew iii, 16, and 
Mark i, 10. But the prep[osition] 'from' (apo) is there 
used [so does Luke iv, 1, rendered 'from* even in James's 
version] ; and the proper rendering is ' up from the 
water.'"* Winer, the great German critic on idioms, 
shows that apo can not be applied to a case where a sub- 
ject was literally in or under the water, but only to cases 
where he was near to, by, at, " not in," says he.f Because 

• Baptizein, page 98 note. 

t " 'kvefiri a-b, up from the water" (Idioms, 298). \i baptidzo means, 
as they say it does, to dip — as dip in all such uses implies withdrawal — 
how could he come up out of the water in their sense, if dip had already 
withdrawn him ? 



32 BAPTISM. 

eh occurs in several of the best ancient manuscripts, Dr. 
Wilkes insists it is the correct reading of Mark i, 10, as 
in Tischendorf. 1. By the same and by far more authority 
he must reject Mark xvi, 15, 16. 2. Scholz, Winer, Bengel, 
Lange, Theile, Olshausen, Mill, Griesbach, Conant, Ander- 
son, Baptist Union Bible, all retain apo there. * 3. Even 
if it were eh in Mark i, 10, it often means "from," while 
apo never means " out of." And all copies read apo, from, 
in Matthew iii, 16, and Luke iv, 1. Hence Christ never 
was literally in Jordan — i. e. the water — but only epi, at 
Jordan, when baptized. 

But taking the incorrect renderings of James, Luke and 
John report the same matter thus : Luke iv, 1 : "And Je- 
sus being full of the Holy Ghost, returned from Jordan." 
That which by Matthew and Mark is reported "from 
the water " is here " returned from Jordan," showing that 
mere departure from the Jordan is meant by all the writers. 
John thus. records it (iv, 3): "He left Judea and departed 
again into Galilee." Thus it is perfectly evident that the 
writers merely meant to tell of his prompt return, of his 
speedy temptation, and of his departure into Galilee; 
nothing indicating emergence, but departure. 

PHILIP AND THE EUNUCH. 

Acts viii, 38 : The supposed confession of the eunuch is 

so evident a forgery that A. Campbell, Anderson, Wilson 

(formerly of their church), McGarvey, all threw it out of 

the text most justly. It is not in any ancient copy (MS.) 

of the Bible. Hence all correct Greek texts now reject it 

without hesitation. 

* Conant, Anderson, Bible Union, Baptist, professedly corrected the 
Greek text, contrary to Wilkes's statement. 



BAPTISM OF PAUL (SAUL). 33 

Next to Romans vi, 4, immersionists have made more 
capital out of the baptism of the eunuch than out of all 
else in James's version, especially as the ignorant masses 
go beyond all records and jumble up the "much water" 
of JEnon with this case, then add both places to Christ's 
baptism, quoting it as if he went straightway into the 
water ! ! 

1. Does the fact that "they went down both into the 
water, both Philip and the eunuch/' imply immersion? 
Or that "they came up out of the water?" These are the 
words relied on. Do "into" and "out of" imply immer- 
sion ? Yes or no ? If you say No, you give up the argu- 
ment. If you say Yes, it destroys the immersion theory; 
for if "into" and "out of" here imply immersion or dip- 
ping, baptidzo does not; for after they went (m)* "into 
the water," it reads, "and he baptized him;" i. e. it was 
after he had been "baptized" that "they came up out 
of the water." 

2. If "into the water" and "out of the water" imply 
immersion, both Philip and the eunuch were immersed. 
"Both Philip and the eunuch" "went down into the 
water," both came up out of it. If it is answered, Philip 
had to go down into the water to immerse him, we reply, 
first, that destroys the "out of" and "into" argument; 
second, it assumes the very point to be proved, that he 
did immerse him. It begs the question altogether. 

3. But it is asked why did they go down into the water 

if not for immersion? If sprinkling was the mode why 

did not Philip run down into the water and secure a cup 

or pitcher full of water? First, decency and good will 

would suggest that both go while one had to go ; second, 

* I follow James's rendering here, of course. Elg- means, primarily, 
toward; then to, unto; then at, and into. 



34 BAPTISM. 

the laws of Moses show why. Wherever possible the law 
required running, i. e. living water, to be used for baptism, 
ritualistic washing. As yet Christianity had not gone to 
the Gentiles, and Moses's law was strictly kept (see Acts 
xv, 1-20; xxi entire; and Gal. iii) long after this. In the 
facts of the laver argument all these matters are fully 
presented, which see. It is also argued that the nobleman 
had vessels for his use in the chariot, and water could 
have been brought in the vessel from the place of water. 
But if he had such, by their use by one unclean, all such 
vessels were unclean, and water for any use could not be 
used from such, as Leviticus xi, 30-36; Numbers xix, 22; 
xxxi, 23, sufficiently tell us. 

4. Bloomfield, Baumgarten, and other most eminent 
scholars believe Philip poured the water on him in the 
baptism. 

5. Finally, we insist if baptidzo means to dip, and we 
know dip means that we put in and withdraw the object 
dipped ; hence if he was dipped, he was withdrawn from 
the water by Philip, which leaves it impossible that he 
should go out of the water literally, being already with- 
drawn from it. 

We deem it time and space lost to discuss, as puerile 
writers do, about whether there was sufficiency of water 
between Gaza and Jerusalem in which to immerse the 
eunuch, or to try to prove, as immersionists do, that the 
jailer was led off in search of water. The plain facts all 
indicate affusion as the mode, as to the three thousand, the 
five thousand, Lydia, Cornelius, Paul, and the jailer. The 
fact that in no instance did the parties in the whole history 
of Christian baptism, during sixty-seven years, go in search 
of water, so far as the record goes or hints — and we pro- 
pose not to leave the record — is all so much evidence 



BAPTISM OF PAUL (SAUL). 35 

against immersion. We are too bountifully supplied with 
proofs of affusion to weaken our crushing facts by forc- 
ing into service matters that of themselves afford no help 
to either side. The language in Acts x, 46, 47, " Can 
any man forbid water," is strongly in favor of the idea 
of it being brought for the baptismal use as against 
immersion. 

We, however, can not see how the theory of immersion 
can apply to the three thousand and five thousand on Pente- 
cost and the next day, especially in view of this. All were 
Jews. Purification or cleansing, if actual, defiled the water, 
and only one could be cleansed, washed, or baptized in or 
with the same water. If ceremonial, then as soon as one was 
ceremonially washed, or baptized symbolically, the water 
became ceremonially unclean. "Whatsoever the un- 
clean toucheth shall be unclean." Certainly non- 
believing Jews, to say the least, would regard all those 
who received Christ as unclean. Would they have allowed 
the Jews converted to Christ to thus ceremonially pollute 
all their public waters ? We can not suppose so for a mo- 
ment. See this further under the head of the laver, Chap- 
ter VI. If confession of each was taken as Baptists and 
Disciples now do, it is difficult to see how so many could 
be examined, prepared, and immersed after the apostles 
closed their preaching (Acts ii, 41). 

But we think the writers on both sides of this question 
have committed grave errors also in aiming to settle so 
great a controversy, almost if not altogether, by the con- 
structions they put upon (so far as the English version 
goes, and largely as to the original) : 

1. The merest incidental " allusions " to baptism. Such 
are Mark i, 9 (ecV, eis), "in," "at Jordan;" Mark i, 5, 
en, "in the Jordan," at, in, or by iEnon near Salim, in 



36 BAPTISM. 

or at Bethany, into the water (Acts viii, 38) ; or, on the 
other side, the three thousand on Pentecost (Acts ii, 41) ; 
the five thousand (Acts v, 14) ; Lydia, the jailer (Acts 
xvi, 16, 33) ; Cornelius (Acts x, 43-47) ; Paul (Acts ix, 
18, 19). These latter are just as decisive as the former, 
if not much more so; yet they are not a historic basis; 
are only incidental allusions, and all briefly given. 

2. Metaphorical as well as incidental allusions, where 
almost every word is highly metaphorical; such texts 
must always be more or less uncertain as to their exact 
meaning when interpreted, at so remote a period, by a 
people not versed in the metaphors of those times. Take 
such examples as Romans vi, 3, 5 ; Colossians ii, 12; John 
iii, 5. Scholars have always, since the fourth century, been 
perplexed as to the real meaning and intent of these texts. 
We say the fourth century, for till then Romans vi, 4, was 
never referred to water baptism, but to spiritual, while 
mostly John iii, 5, was held to be spiritual water, just as 
Origen, Calvin, Beza, Zwingle, etc. held. 

3. Those texts that are only allusions to the baptismal 
use of water and are not actual baptism, and expressed in 
highly metaphorical style, based upon the ancient use of 
water. Such are Ephesians v, 26 ; Titus iii, 5 ; Isaiah iv, 
4; Isaiah i, 16; Psalm li, 2-9; Ezekiel xvi, 9; Hebrews 

vx, 22, and are far more pertinent, since they are general 
allusions to baptism and especially indicate its proper sym- 
bolism, viz. cleansing. 

What we demand is a historic basis, a record of facts 
in historic order, then the allusions and metaphors are to 
be explained by well-ascertained facts, not the fact assumed, 
then sought to be proved by mixed, uncertain, and meta- 
phorical allusions; many of which are in themselves wholly 
uncertain. 



BAPTISM OF PAUL (SAUL.) 37 

METAPHORICAL INCIDENTAL ALLUSIONS TO WATER 
AND SPIRIT BAPTISM. 

But as mere incidental allusions to baptism are exclu- 
sively relied on as to Bible arguments by our opponents, 
let us examine a few of the acknowledged allusions to 
water baptism, on which all parties are agreed that the 
allusion is to ritualistic baptism. 

Eph. v, 25, 26: a As Christ also loved the church, and 
gave himself for it, that he might sanctify and cleanse 
it with the washing (cleansing) of water by the word." 

1. All immersionists refer this to baptism. A. Camp- 
bell, Wilkes, Dr. Brents, and all their writers always cite 
it thus and quote Wesley, Clarke, Doddridge, etc. to back 
their statements. 

2. It confirms affusion. What is done to effect the 
(loutron) washing here? Two words are used — (1) sanc- 
tify, (2) cleanse. (1) Sanctify. How did they ritualistic- 
ally sanctify the church or people? Hebrews ix, 13, 19, 
with Numbers xix, 13, 18, tell us it is done by sprink- 
ling the water. Josephus tells us Moses " sprinkled 
Aaron and his sons" for this purpose. See full quotations 
under the argument on the laver. (2) Cleanse. How did 
they cleanse them? Numbers viii, 7: "And thus shalt 
thou do unto them, to cleanse them : Sprinkle water of 
purifying upon them." Ezekiel xxxvi, 25, refers to this 
cleansing, and, like Paul, names only the sprinkling of 
water as affecting it: "Then will I sprinkle clean water 
upon you, and you shall be clean" — cleansed. Here we 
have Paul, Moses, and Ezekiel giving us the mode of this 
cleansing and sanctifying; it is by sprinkling clean or pure 
water upon the persons. 

Hebews x, 22, they all say refers to "Christian bap- 



38 BAPTISM. 

tism." Dr. Graves gives it special prominence (Debate, p. 
186) as "Christian baptism." But the above facts, as well 
as the laver, show the washing was by affusion of clean or 
pure water on the parties. Where it says body — over and 
again the Bible says body where only the face, the head, 
etc., or a part is designated (John xiii, 9, compared with 
verse 10, "he that is washed;" verse 8, "if I wash thee 
not;" Matt, xxvi, 7, "poured it on his head;" verse 12, 
"on my body;" verse 10, "upon me;" Num. viii, 7, 
"shave all their flesh," body; Titus iii, 5, 6) — they all 
say alludes to or is baptism, the washing. Clearly enough 
it is an allusion to the baptismal use of water, just as 
Isaiah i, 16; Ezekiel xvi, 9; Psalm li, 1, 2, 7; Isaiah iv, 
4, are — "wash me;" "I have washed thee with water," 
etc. ; but " the washing of regeneration " is that " which 
he shed (poured out) upon us abundantly" — a metaphor- 
ical use of words based on the actual pouring of water 
on the baptized subjects, symbolizing the Spirit (Isaiah 
xliv, 3). Hence, 

1. In all cases in the Bible where the mode of baptizing 
(Spirit) is given it is pouring. 

2. In all cases where the mode in the allusions to bap- 
tism is given it is affusion. 

3. Wherever such words as cleanse, sanctify are used, 
referring to water, where all admit it points to baptism, as 
Ephesians v, 26, it is affusion. 

4. Immersion as an ordinance of God's church is a 
stranger and foreigner to the whole Bible. 



JORDAN. 39 



CHAPTER VI. 

Jordan. 

The following facts will appear on examining the evi- 
dence appended thereto: 

1. John did not baptize at or in the Jordan at the 
beginning of his ministry, but went " away again beyond 
Jordan," to Bethany. 

2. Jordan is in one of the hottest valleys in the world, 
owing to its great depression at the lower part, where John 
baptized. 

3. The water flows from regions of perpetual snow, in 
Hermon and Anti-Lebanon, and hence the water is very 
cold. Most of the way it is shaded by abrupt cliffs and 
mountains "thousands of feet high." The waters run 
down a steep of three thousand feet, hence so cool from 
such snow-regions on the mountains. 

4. Smith's summary of the facts is: "From its fountain 
heads to the point where it is lost to nature (empties in 
the Dead Sea) it rushes down one continuous inclined 
plane, only broken by a series of rapids or precipitous 
falte." This is immersion authority. Where are those 

i eddies, stagnant places, and conveniences we hear of? 

5. John left such an unhealthy valley just as soon as 
the great press of the multitudes would allow — as soon as 
the numbers were so reduced that the springs or "foun- 
tains" at iEnon near Salim would accommodate their 
wants. 



40 BAPTISM. 

6. It was a physical impossibility for John to stand in 
the cold water so long as the immersion theory requires. 
Circulation of blood would have ceased, animal heat would 
have been promptly overcome, and death ensued in a short 
time. 

7. It is a physical impossibility that John could have 
immersed so many, if even the smallest number that any 
reasonable estimate demands be granted, in so swift a 
stream as was and is the Jordan. When a steamboat runs 
eight miles to the hour, not to say ten, none but practiced 
persons can risk throwing a bucket into the water and 
drawing it out full of water. But here the stream is as 
swift or swifter than that, and persons much heavier and 
larger than a bucket certainly; and while a man could 
take another and dip him by being very careful, it is not 
possible that one man could immerse great numbers in 
such a rapid stream, for the physical labor, the certainty 
of many being swept away from his hold arid drowning, 
forbid. In a few minutes the limbs would become so 
numb in such a cold stream as to make the action of the 
lower limbs impossible. 

Let us now see the proofs. The length of the Jordan 
directly to the Dead Sea is sixty miles. By its windings 
it is two hundred miles. Its fall is over three thousand 
feet. Dr. Robinson, Lieut. Lynch, and Gage all show its 
fall to be over three thousand feet. As Dr. Wm. Smith is 
such a favorite with immersionists, we prefer quoting from 
him. In his Dictionary of the Bible, following Lynch, he 
says, " The depression . . of the Dead Sea below the Med- 
iterranean is 1,316.7, and 653.3 feet below Tiberias." He 
then gives the height of the head of the Jordan above the 
level of the Mediterranean 1,700 feet. The mouth is 1,317 
feet below it, making the fall of the Jordan in all "a 



JORDAN. 41 

height of more than three thousand feet." Divide this by 
two hundred miles, and we have the average fall to the 
mile fifteen feet. The actual distance is sixty miles, which 
divided into three thousand gives sixty feet to the mile. 
Some writers put the distance one hundred and twenty 
miles, twenty-five feet average. The upper Jordan has 
more fall than the lower, where John baptized. Robinson 
shows its fall where John baptized to be a little over ten 
feet to the mile. The fall of the Mississippi is a little over 
jive inches to the mile, yet runs from three to five miles an 
hour, much as it winds. 

Kitto says, " It becomes turbid ; . . . the water is . . . 
always cold." 

Of the upper Jordan a writer in Harper, June number, 
1870, says, " The river soon became a roaring torrent, in 
which no boat could live." Lynch tells us they often had 
to have their iron boats hauled around places, because so 
dangerous, owing to the current. One iron boat perished 
any how. The above writer of Harper says they were 
assailed by a mob, but "the current bore the canoe along 
too rapidly for them to keep up with it, but they cut 
across the bend" and thus overtook it for a moment. 

Rabbi Joseph Swarz, for sixteen years a resident in the 
Holy Land (p. 43), says, "The Jordan . . . is so rapid a 
stream that even the best swimmer can not bathe in it 
without endangering his life. In the neighborhood of 
Jericho (there is where John baptized) the bathers are 
compelled to tie themselves together with ropes, to prevent their 
being swept away by the rapidity of the current* 

Rev. D. A. Randall, a Baptist, who traveled in Pales- 
tine thus writes: "According to the usual custom of vis- 
itors, we commenced arrangements for a bath, when our 
* A Descriptive Geography, etc. of Palestine. 
4 



42 BAPTISM. 

sheik interposed, declaring the current too swift, and that 
it would be dangerous to enter the stream ; that a man had 
been drowned in this very place only a few days before. 
But we had not come so far to be thwarted in our plans 
by trifles. Being a good swimmer, I measured the strength 
of the current with my eye, and willing to risk it, pluuged 
in, and my companions one after another followed. We 
found the current quite strong, so that we could not venture 
to a great depth, but far enough to accomplish our purpose 
of a plunge bath."* W. M. Thompson, missionary in 
Syria and Palestine twenty-five years, says of the current, 
"The current is astonishingly rapid. ... It required the 
most expert swimmer to cross it, and one less skilled must 
inevitably be carried away, as we had melancholy proof. 
Two Christians and a Turk, who ventured too far, were 
drowned without the possibility of rescue, and the wonder 
is that more did not share the same fate."f This is at the 
place where " our blessed Savior was baptized." Some peo- 
ple "ducked the women;" men carried their little children 
for the same purpose, "trembling like so many lambs;" 
while " some had water poured on their heads in imitation 
of the baptism of the Savior" (ibid.). 

Lieut. Lynch, who traversed the entire Jordan, and 
whose statements none questions — indeed, he seems to be 
an immersionist — gives us an account of his descent in 
iron boats, one of which was destroyed by the violent cur- 
rent dashing it to pieces against obstacles : " The shores 
(seemed) to flit by us. With its tumultuous rush the river 
hurried us onward, and we knew not what the next mo- 
ment would bring forth — whether it would dash us upon 

* The Handwriting of God, or . . . the Holy Land, Part II, 
pp. 233-4. 

t The Land and the Book, or the Holy Land, by W. M. Thompson, 
D.D.,vol. 2, pp. 445-6. 



JORDAN. 43 

a rot-/:, or plunge us down a cataract" (p. 255). This was 
the lower Jordan, where John baptized. They arrived at 
El Meshra, where John baptized. The banks are ten feet 
high, save at the ford, and the water is suddenly deep. 
Here he moralizes how "the Deity, veiled in flesh, de- 
scended the bank, . . . and the impetuous river, in grateful 
homage, must have stayed its course, and gently laved the 
body of its Lord" (p. 256). When pilgrims came to 
bathe, he anchored below them, "to be in readiness to ren- 
der assistance should any of the crowd be swept down by 
the current, and in danger of drowning, . . . accidents, it 
is said, occurring every year" (pp. 261, 265). 

They went on and soon passed "a camel in the river, 
washed down by the current in attempting to cross the 
ford last night" (p. 266). In five minutes they "passed 
another camel in the river, the poor beast leaning exhausted 
against the bank, and his owner seated despondingly above 
him. We could not help him/" (p. 266). Abridged Work, 
p. 170. 

Immersion is absurd in the light of these facts. The 
facts show that, 

1. John baptized not in Jordan at first, not till the 
news of his work excited general attention, and the 
great " multitudes " coming necessitated a place of much 
water. Every ablution, every drink, all cooking had 
to be with clean water. Had John been at a pond or 
tank of water with even enough to supply all with drink- 
ing, cooking, and cleansing waters, as well as for animals, 
thai would not have been sufficient. The moment unclean 
people or animals, or dead bodies of any kind, should have 
touched the water it would be nnsuited for drinking, for 
washing. Hence no place would have suited for John's 
ministry when such multitudes came but a place, first, of 



44 BAPTISM. 

plenty water ; second, running water ; for a fountain " or 
"confluence of waters" can not become unclean. This* 
explains John's going to Jordan. When the great " mul- 
titudes " ceased to come, iEnon furnished by its springs 
enough running water for all purposes whatever. Hence, 

2. We read (John x, 40-42), "And [Christ] went away 
again beyond (peran) the Jordan, (eis) into the place where 
John at the first baptized, and there remained. . . . And many 
believed on him thereP Christ went into the place ; abode 
in the place where John baptized ; people believed on him 
there. As he baptized at iEnon, so at, or in, as the local- 
ity, the Jordan, and first " beyond Jordan." 

Aside from all else, the following remarks are appro- 
priate : 

1. In no case is a word said in the New Testament 
about Jordan or iEnon and " much water " as the place 
where any one was baptized in all the sixty-seven or sixty- 
eight years of apostolic history, though " multitudes " 
were converted (Acts v, 14; xvii, 4; and xviii, 7; ix, 42; 
iv, 4). 

2. In no case of baptism under the apostolic converts 
do we read of into or out of the water. Only in Acts 
viii, 38, where the deacon Philip baptized one man, is 
that language used, they being on a journey. See the 
case. 

3. Hence, if the much water and the Jordan have to 
be appealed to to support immersion; if in John's six 
months' ministry people had to go so great a distance to be 
immersed, inasmuch as in sixty-seven or sixty-eight years 
of baptism under the commission that never occurs, it is 
strong proof that the Christian dispensation was without 
immersion. 

1 Cor. x, 2 : " Our fathers were all under the cloud, and 



JORDAN. 45 

all passed through the sea, and were all baptized unto 
Moses in the cloud and in the sea," or as Luther and 
some versions have it, and as is equally correct with the 
English, " with the cloud and with the sea." 

It is urged by immersionists that here we have a meta- 
phorical baptism; that the sea congealed on each side in 
high walls ; the cloud stood over making a pavilion, and 
as the Hebrews descended they were all shut in, envel- 
oped by the cloud and sea, covered over, and, as it were, 
immersed! They never say "dipped" on this occasion. 
If the words " dip " and " immerse " are the same exactly, 
mean the same thing in the same place, why not read 
" dipped " in this case ? 

1. It is not a metaphorical but a literal baptism. As 
outward, literal baptism is never performed without contact 
with some liquid, and water was the only liquid here, it 
was water baptism. 

2. They were not immersed in water, hence it was not 
immersion. 

3. But it is urged they were " enveloped," * etc. That 
the cloud was over them while in the sea. Paul does not 
say so. And Moses expressly says the reverse (Ex. xiv, 
19-22). The cloud rose up, passed over them, stood be- 
tween the two armies all that night, keeping back the 
Egyptians. So all this assumption of a cloud over them 
while in the sea is untrue. Wesley and others believe 
that " God sent a plentiful rain by which he confirmed his 
heritage" at that time (Ps. lxviii, 9 ; lxxvii, 17; lxxviii, 
23), and thus baptized them. Josephus, a contemporary 

* Since the publication of the debate I see Dr. Graves (page 392) 
asks, " How could the descent of Israel into the Ked Sea, and their being 
buried out of sight in the cloud?" etc. "What daring imposture this! 
He was careful not to say that in debate ; but, like nearly all the rest, 
slip it in unseen. 



46 BAPTISM. 

of Paul and learned in the law and traditions of the Jews, 
says of this occasion expressly, " Showers of rain also 
came down from the sky."* It is next to absolute cer- 
tainty that Paul knew of, and alludes to that as a fact, 
and denominates it baptism. 

This much we know absolutely : 

1. There was no immersion, no plunging into water, 
no dipping as to the Hebrews. 

2. They were all baptized with water. 

3. All the hosts of Pharaoh were immersed, not one 
of them was baptized. The Hebrew, Greek, and Latin 
read (Ex. xv, 1, 4, 5, 10), they were "immersed" {tabha 
in Hebrew; katedusan in Greek; submersi sunt, in Latin, 
submersed). The English reads "sank," which Conant, 
A. Campbell, Wilkes, Graves, all tell us is the English 
of immerse. 

Rom. vi, 3, 4; Col. ii, 11: "Buried by baptism into 
death" This is now regarded as the Gibralter of the 
immersion theory. We never hear it correctly quoted in 
popular addresses by them. Invariably we hear them 
say that Paul calls baptism a burial. It is a burial. We 
know a thing or person is not buried till completely cov- 
ered up. Let us notice, therefore, in the outset, the 
groundless assumptions made on this text. It is falsely 
assumed that, 

1. It is water baptism. 

2. That " buried by baptism into death " is a literal 
burial of the physical body, when the very words of the 
text expose glaringly its absurdity. 

3. That burial among the Romans was such an inter- 
ment, covering over in the earth, as we in modern times 
practice in burial in Europe and America, which Robin- 

* Antiquities, B. 11, chap, xvi, p. 93. 



JORDAN. 47 

son, their own historian, tells them is not the case (page 
550).* 

4. That the " planted " of verse 5 implies covering up, 
as if it were as we plant corn, potatoes, when neither of 
these fruits of the soil was discovered till in America. 
The "planted in the likeness of his death" is in the 
Greek " born together," " grafted together." Was Christ's 
death accomplished under water f Is there any likeness 
between Christ's death on the cross and a dip under 
water ? 

Even the word bury in the Scripture does not necessa- 
rily imply interment. Jer. xxii, 19: "He shall be buried 
with the burial of an ass, drawn and cast forth beyond 
the gates of Jerusalem." Jer. xxxvi, 30: "His (Jehoia- 
kim's) dead body shall be cast out in the day to the heat, 

*Kobinson says (page 55), "The first English Baptists, when they 
read the phrase " buried in baptism," instantly thought of an English 
burial, and therefore baptized by laying the body in the form of bury- 
ing in their own country. But they might have observed that Paul 
wrote to Komans, and that Komans did not bury, but burned the dead, 
and buried nothing of the dead but their ashes in urns; so that no fair 
reasoning on the form of baptizing can be drawn from the mode of 
burying the dead in England." Yet now, driven from lexicons, all 
ancient versions, and utterly defeated on every favorite field, this meta- 
phorical text is their last and only support from their own stand- 
point. 

1. Baptism was symbolic of innocence, purity, for fifteen hundred 
years ; never representing burial. 

2. In John's day baptism never represented burial. No one pre- 
tends that it did. 

3. Christ's commission (Matt, xxviii, 19, 20) leaves it where it was 
as to mode or design — symbolic of the Spirit's work, never hinting a 
change in its design. 

4. The Acts never hint a change. Nowhere in apostolic use does 
any pretend that it symbolized death, burial, or resurrection. 

5. Hence it is infinitely absurd to select a highly metaphorical text, 
giving it a meaning that has no foundation in any previous history, nor 
in a single literal text in the Bible, as an argument. 



48 BAPTISM. 

and in the night to the frost." This was called burying 
with the burial of an ass — left on top of the ground a 
" prey to weather and animals. The verb here rendered 
" bury " (thapto) is rendered "embalmed " in Genesis 1, 26 ; 
xlix, 30, 31 ; 1, 2, 7, and its noun "embalmers " or " phy- 
sicians" who embalmed. The word is employed in 
Greek where the dead are laid on piles of wood to be 
burned, on scaffolds to be consumed by the elements. It 
does not necessarily imply interment. 

5. But Wesley, * A. Clarke, etc. say it refers " to the 
ancient practice of baptizing by immersion." But as an 
offset we reply, M. Stuart, Hodge, and Beza, in their com- 
mentaries, as well as others, reject this view, and main- 
tain it is not water baptism, not immersion, there alluded 
to, but spiritual baptism. 

6. Worse still for immersion. No Christian father of 
the first three hundred years cites that as water baptism. 
Origen, the father of commentators, born only eighty- 
three years after John's death and the most learned 
scholar of the church for sixteen hundred years, main- 
tains it elaborately as spiritual baptism. Not till super- 
stition and idolatry had prostituted water baptism into 
a hideous and frightful monstrosity was this held to be 
water baptism. 

7. Even Dr. Wilkes, usually a very careful man in 

his statements compared with others of that side, says, 

"Now, here is a baptism. It is declared to be a burial. 

It is also declared that we are i raised up ' again" (Lou. 

Debate, p. 602, after quoting Rom. vi, 3, 4). Notice the 

* In Louisville debate I copied an edition of Wesley's Notes that 
had not the words "by immersion" in Eomans vi, 4. But I find no 
other copy that leaves it off; besides, it is evident from his note on 
Colossians ii, 12, as well as the words on Komans vi, 4, found in him, 
that this one edition is changed, and " by immersion " were his words. 



JORDAN. 49 

blunders here made: First, it is not called or declared 
to be a burial. The burial is not the baptism, but the 
spiritual effect of the baptism; second, it is not "de- 
clared that we are ' raised up' again. " No such words 
occur in that text. He cites them with quotation-marks 
as if there. Christ was "raised up from the dead," not 
from water, and our part is, " we should walk in new- 
ness of life (verse 4). We walk in newness of life 
in our buried condition. Hence it is not under water, 
but to be " delivered, baptized, buried by baptism into 
death " — " our lives hid with Christ in God." 

8. Dr. Graves (Debate, p. 116) says, "The phrase 
' planted in the likeness of death' is, if possible, still 
stronger [i. e. than buried by baptism into death]. 
What is the likeness of death? A burial is the likeness 
of death, and the only likeness of death." (Italics his.) 

1. Here the doctor misquoted the passage, leaving out 
" his " before death, and makes it read " planted in the 
likeness of death " generally instead of likeness of " his 
death," which was by crucifixion, hanging on a cross. 
Where is there a likeness between a dip under the water 
and dying on a cross? 

2. He makes this word "planted together " imply modal 
action, as people now plant corn, potatoes, and such other 
things as they "cover up!" Does he not know that 
"plant" in the English Bible never so applies? That 
trees, vineyards, etc. are " planted," but in no case " cov- 
ered up?" 

The word in Romans vi, 5, which he thinks is stronger 
than "buried by baptism into death" is sumphutoi, from 
sumphuo, born, engraft, planted, grow together. Ander- 
son, imrnersionist, renders it in this place " united to- 
gether in the likeness of his death." In no case is it 
5 



50 BAPTISM. 

modal. If it were it is utterly destructive of immersion, 
as Christ's death was not under water, but hanging on 
a cross. 

10. It can not be too strongly emphasized that any doc- 
trine or view of Scripture that is supported by men's views 
of the most highly-wrought metaphors and by these alone, 
and only two such — they the same in substance — in all 
the Bible, without any literal verse any where, with no 
plain, historic record to give explanation or direction — we 
repeat, such a way of interpreting the Bible is so absurd, 
so pernicious, so destructive of all processes of discover- 
ing truth, that it is never allowed in law, never allowed 
in science, and never tolerated in the study of divinity, 
save by the most distempered partisanship and intolerable 
bigotry. 

The " buried by baptism into death " is the effect of the 
"baptized into Jesus Christ" of verse 3. The "buried 
into death " is not the baptism, but the effect of the bap- 
tism. "Therefore we are buried by the baptism," so the 
Greek reads, "into death," i. e. to sin. The "buried" is 
the same as "crucified" (verse 6), as "grafted together 
in the likeness of his death " (verse 5) ; the same as ' 'cir- 
cumcised with the circumcision made without hands, . . . 
buried with him by baptism into death" — not into wa- 
ter (Col. ii, 11, 12). The parties are raised, as Anderson, 
Wesley, and others have it, "by your faith in the energy 
of God" — not by the arm of the minister, as in immer- 
sion. 

12. Again, this buried condition is given by Paul as 
evidence that all who are in it " are dead to sin," "cruci- 
fied with Christ," " grafted together in the likeness of his 
death," "freed from sin," etc. But no one believes that 
water baptism is proof that we "are dead to sin," etc. 



JORDAN. 51 

The apostles never appeal to water baptism as proof of 
"death to sin." Hence it can not be water baptism.* 

Wesley, Clarke, and the writers of modern times who 
agree with them mainly held proselyte baptism to be the 
baptism referred to; but immersionists unanimously hold 
that it came in later, and so reject the groundwork of 
Wesley's and Clarke's views. All those taking the im- 
mersion view translate "are" by "were buried." But, 

1. All standards on Greek grammar are against this, as 
I abundantly show in the Louisville debate. 

2. All ancient versions are against it. 

3. By this change we have Paul saying, to be consist- 
ent, " we were dead to sin," but are not so now, but " con- 
tinue in sin ; " " our old man was crucified," but is not so 
now; "he that was dead was freed from sin;" "for you 
were dead, and your life was hid with Christ in God" 
(Col. ii, 12;iii, 3).f 

It should be remarked that, 

1. No standard lexicon ever renders baptidzo by "bury." 

2. The very few inferior ones that give it put it as a re- 
mote, metaphorical meaning. 

3. Immersionists sometimes dare render the obruo — 
"overwhelm" of the lexicons — by bury, so reckless are 
they. 

* For many other arguments and an elaborate defense of the present 
tense of Romans vi, 4, in English, see Louisville Debate, Wilkes-Ditzler, 
pp. 644-648. In that, Winer, p. 217; Jelf, vol. 2, pp. 66, 67; Kiihner, 
Gram. 346-7, and all authorities support our present version in the 
tense " are buried." 

t Since I obtained Origen's Works ( nine volumes folio ) I was 
pleased to find that he cited all the texts I had cited in the Louisville 
debate — "I die daily;" "Always bearing about in our body the dying 
of our Lord," etc. (2 Cor. iv, 10) ; " We who live are always delivered eis 
(into) death" — as the same as Romans vi, 4; Colossians ii, 12: "Always 
delivered; " " are buried by baptism into death ; " "to sin; " " our lives 
are hid with Christ," etc. 



52 BAPTISM. 

John iii, 5, is quoted to support immersion, as if emerg- 
ence out of the element was implied. It is here assumed, 

1. That this is water baptism. It was not held to be 
water baptism by any writer we have ever met of the first 
three centuries ; yet we have thought it did allude to water 
baptism, but never to Christian baptism. 

2. The Jews were accustomed to say, " born of circum- 
cision" (Lightfoot's Horse Heb. et Tal.). Did they emerge 
out of circumcision ? 

3. There is nothing modal in the Greek word here used. 
It implies no more than to be impressed, influenced to the 
extent of change. "I have begotten you" is the same 
word. It is often rendered "begotten" by A. Campbell, 
Anderson, and all immersionist translators. Hence, 

4. It reads "born of water and of the Spirit" Does 
" born of the Spirit " in the same sentence imply "emerg- 
ence" out of the Spirit? Surely not, but to receive the 
Spirit poured out upon them. 

As immersionists cling so desperately now to John's 
baptism, we must notice the use they make of en in con- 
nection with the water. It is common to all, from Carson 
or Gale to Dr. Graves and Wilkes, to insist that en necessa- 
rily involves the idea not of instrumentality , — "with water," 
but " in water." Hence we have produced a vast array of 
texts never produced before on this subject. 

In the Greek from the Hebrew, b y or t?' "with" we 
have the expression scores of times in the laws of Moses, 
in every instance of which save two (unless I missed in 
count, and I was careful) the expression wash with water, 
rendered " bathe in water " sometimes in James's version, 
is simply hudati — with water. The en (&) which the im- 
mersionists render "in" does not occur save in two in- 
stances. In other places the en occurs, clearly indicating, 



JORDAN. 53 

like the Hebrew preposition be, instrumentality — with. 
Ezek. xvi, 9 : " I have washed thee (en) with water." If 
one shall say the " en " in that case points to immersion, we 
reply, first, the verse refutes that. " Then washed I thee 
with (en) water ; yea, I thoroughly washed away thy blood 
from thee, and I anointed thee (en) with oil" This language 
clearly imports that the water is applied to the person. It 
is figurative of course ; but, second, the with (en) oil settles 
the force of en to be with. The oil is poured on the party 
anointed. Yet en expresses it — with oil.* Half of the 
New Testament references in the common text use en, one 
half do not. In the places where en is used, the versions, 
like the Vulgate and Luther, have it with water. So 
Isaiah iv, 4 : God will " purge away the filth of the daugh- 
ters of Jerusalem, en with (or by) the spirit of burning." 

In the books of Moses, in the Greek, en occurs forty- 
one times from Exodus xxix, 2, 4, etc. to Numbers xxxv, 
25, en elaio — " with oil ; " not once is it simply elaib where 
the oil is poured on the parties. 

In Leviticus xiv, 51, "And [shall pererranei] sprinkle 
with them " [en autois in the LXX, used by the apostles — 
the hyssop, blood, etc.] upon " the house seven times" 
(verse 52). "And he shall cleanse the house (en) en to haimati 
\iv to* alfiari] with the blood of the bird, and (en) with the 
running [living] water \_b ™ vdari\, and (en) with the liv- 
ing bird, and (en) with the cedar-wood, and (en) with 
the hyssop, and (en) with the scarlet." Here consecu- 
tively seven times en occurs in the Greek Scriptures, used 
by the apostles and early Christians indicating instrumen- 
tality every time — is repeated before every noun, meaning 
with each time, as none will question. The house was 

* The same force of en (kv) is seen in Exodus xiii, 9 ; Revelation xiv, 
15 ; vi, 5 ; Isaiah iv, 4 ; 1 John v, 6 ; and many other places. 



54 BAPTISM. 

sprinkled with blood, with water, and en is used for the 
" with " every time. In Exodus xii, 9, " sodden (en hudati) 
with water." 1 Kings xviii, 4 : "And fed them [the one 
hundred prophets in caves by fifties] en, with bread and 
water" (verse 13), en, "with bread and water." 

Ezek. xvi, 4 : " In the day thou wast born, neither wast 
thou washed (en hudati) with water." 

Often to see " with the eyes " is expressed by en ophthal- 
mois. So Ezek. xl, 4 ; 2 Kings xxii, 20 ; Zech. ix, 8 ; 
Sirach xxxv, 7 ; li, 35. " With power," is expressed by 
en dunamei repeatedly (Acts iv, 7, etc.) ; with the voice, en 
phonae, often (2 Sam. xv, 25; 2 Kings viii, 56 (55 Gr.); 
xviii, 27). 

In 1 Chronicles xv, 25, " with ( & ) en, shouting, and 
(en) with sound of the cornet, and (en) with trumpets, and 
(en) with cymbals, and (en) with psalteries," etc. In the 
Greek the en, with, occurs six times in that one verse as 
here for with. So 2 Chronicles xv, 14, it occurs three 
times for with — "with a loud voice (en), with (en) trump- 
ets," etc. 

Cases could be multiplied indefinitely,* but these are 
more than are needed. 

But our advantage is greater still. While the inferior 
Greek texts somewhat divide the case in the New Testa- 
ment between the cases where en occurs with hudati, wa- 
ter, and simply hudati as dative of instrument, with water, . 
the great modern scholars Tregelles, Tischendorf, Alford, 
etc., give us a far more correct Greek text with the en 
thrown out of Mark i, 8, also giving us Luke iii, 11, 16; 
Mark i, 8; Acts 1, 5; xi, 15, 16, against Matt, iii, 11; 
John i, 33, etc. — two who have en, and that en the facts just 

*See e. g. Genesis xlix, 11; 2 Samuel xiii, 22; 2 Peter ii, 16; 
1 Thessalonians iv, 10. 



JORDAN. 55 

given show means with. Above all we have already seen 
that the mode was given — baptized with the Spirit sent 
down from above, poured upon. them. 

DECENCY — HEALTH — CONVENIENCE. 

These questions are gravely discussed by Elder P. H. 
Mell, " Professor of Greek and Latin in Mercer Univer- 
sity, Georgia," in a reply to Dr. Summers's Treatise on 
Baptism, pages 163-169. There are some facts to which 
we call their attention who favor immersion : 

1. Immersionists wear suits of clothes made of India 
rubber and other water-proof materials to protect them- 
selves when immersing candidates. Such suits are adver- 
tised for sale. 

2. Suits of clothes are specially made for parties to be 
immersed, advertised as such, on questions of decency — 
designed to guard against indecencies in the act of im- 
mersion. 

3. Baptisteries in such comparatively mild climates as 
Northern Kentucky, Ohio, Illinois, etc., have furnaces 
made under them to warm the water to guard against ill 
health, suffering, and discomfort. 

4. In some cases in the same latitude the baptistery 
adjoins rooms that have special conveniences for warming 
and affording the immersed parties the means of changing 
clothes at once and without risk to health as well as im- 
proper exposure to gaze. 

5. In one leading immersion church, corner of Fourth 
and Walnut (" Campbellite "), Louisville, Ky., screens exist 
to guard ladies from the sight of the audience while de- 
scending into the water, which are run back out of the way 
as soon as the lady is well fixed in the water to undergo 



56 BAPTISM. 

immersion. The screens are run back between her and 
the audience as soon as she is dipped, so that she can not 
be seen as she ascends out of the baptistery. 

6. Is not this admission of the weight of all the charges 
brought ? Is it not an advertisement of the fact that intel- 
ligent immersionists regard it as unhealthy, dangerous, in- 
decent in appearance and also impracticable in a large part 
of the globe? 

7. If warm rooms, furnace-furnished baptisteries, water- 
proof clothes for administrators, special suits for candidates 
be necessary in such latitudes as Louisville and Paris, Ky., 
Cincinnati, Chicago, and other cities, what of the regions 
in Northern Canada, Greenland, and various regions where 
it would take enough oil to support half a colony for 
months to make fire enough to melt ice enough to im- 
merse one person, and he or she most certainly freeze to 
death before such candidate could be dressed and warmed ? 
Is the gospel to be excluded forever from such latitudes? 
Without coal or wood, perpetual ice around them, in other 
less northerly regions so cold and chilly as that death is 
almost certain unless good furnaces were active under the 
baptistery and warmed houses adjoining, I can not see how 
any one can make immersion, as the one only mode, com- 
patible with the teaching and spirit of the New Testament. 
In a large part of the world it is utterly impossible — in 
larger regions impracticable. 

8. A person immersed in filthy water, in mere filthy 
ponds, is not baptized at all. " Having our bodies washed 
with pure water" (Heb. x, 22) does not mean filthy water. 



BAPTISM OUT OF THE LAYER. 



CHAPTER VII. 

Baptism Out of the Laver. 

The most perfect historic record of baptism that we have 
is that of the ancient Jews. It is that of the laver. Here 
we have a record — a history. It runs through fifteen hun- 
dred years. The data are most abundant. If we fail to 
get light from such a record, with such a vast literature, 
inspired and uninspired, encircling it, we may well despair 
of understanding the matter altogether. 

In this, the origin of symbolic baptism as a divine 
rite, commanded by Jehovah and performed by his peo- 
ple, we may clearly see the design and correct the many 
abuses of baptism. We can clearly see that it was sym- 
bolic, but not of death, of burial, of resurrection ; not a 
door into the church ; not an initiatory rite ; not for remis- 
sion of sins ; not really sacramental. 

In Exodus xxx, 18-21, we read of the laver that stood 
between the altar of burnt offerings and the door of the 
tabernacle. "Aaron and his sons shall wash (rachats) 
their hands and their feet [ek, Heb. min~\ out of it."* "And 
when they go into the tabernacle of the congregation, they 
shall wash with water, that they die not." " Thou shalt 
bring Aaron and his sons to the door of the tabernacle of 
the congregation, and wash them with water (Ex. xl, 12). 

♦Exodus xxx, 18-21: Ruchats; Greek, ml, vtyerat z% avrov; xl, 30, 
vi-rrruvrat et- avrov ; verse 31, kv'nrrerai ef avrov. This is carelessly ren- 
dered in James's version " thereat " for " out of it." 



58 BAPTISM. 

Of the laver (verse 3) : "And put water therein to wash 
(ek) out of it" " Moses, and Aaron and his sons, washed 
their hands and their feet out of it (ek)." 

In the first laver was water for washing both the Le- 
vites and the sacrificial meats. In the later laver, separate 
ones were made for washing the meats. The first time 
these baptisms were carried out is in Leviticus viii, 4-6, 
where Moses brought Aaron and his sons to the door of 
the tabernacle, according to the above commands, and 
washed them with water. 

1. We are all agreed that these laver washings were 
baptisms.* We have no dispute here. It is a unanimous 
agreement of both sides. In Hebrews ix, 10, Paul tells 
of the tabernacle services that " stood in meats and drinks, 
and divers baptisms" — "divers washings" in our version. 
All immersionists refer these to the washings of the laver 
and other like washings. Fuller, Gale, Hinton, Carson, 
A. Campbell, Judd, Ingham, Graves, Wilkes, all assert 
they were immersions, baptisms. Judith xii, 7 : " Washed 
herself [baptized herself] at the fountain of water." f 
Sirach (Ecclesiasticus, apocryphal) xxvi, 31 (some copies 
verses 31, 30) : " He that baptizes himself from [touch- 
ing] a dead body, if he touch it again, what is he prof- 
ited by his washing?" Mark vii, 4; Luke xi, 38, ap- 
ply baptidzo to the daily washings of the Jews. So do 
many other Greek and Hebrew writers. Hence there is 
no controversy here. 

A. Campbell's language will represent them fully on 
the main issue. "And the laver filled with water. . . . 
In this laver . . . the priests always washed themselves 

* In Hebrew expressed by r achats ; vItctu, lovto, etc. in Greek. 

t kbairTi&To . . . ettI rfja Trrjv^a rov vdarocr. Conant tells us the Syriac 
reads "immersed," etc. This is utterly untrue. It is amad, wash. See 
on Syriac Versions, amad, Chapter XXIV. 



BAPTISM OUT OF THE LAVER. 59 

before they approached the sanctuary." "This vessel 
was called in Greek loutaer, and the water in it loutron. 
. . . Paul more than once alludes to this usage in the 
tabernacle in his epistles, and once substitutes Christian 
immersion in its place." * Again, " The divers washings 
[baptismois] of cups, etc. and things mentioned f among 
the traditions of the elders, and the institutions of the 
laver were for ceremonial cleansing. Hence all by immer- 
sion." % Let it be noted here how explicitly he states the 
design of baptism as originally instituted — " ceremonial 

CLEANSING." 

The learned Baptist, Dr. Gale, elaborates the same 
thing (Reflections on Wall, vol. 2, p. 101, of Wall's His- 
tory of Infant Baptism), urging that rachats "I think 
always, including dipping," — tells of this laver, cites 
2 Chronicles iv, 6, on it, and insists that they dipped in 
it — immersed. 

2. The next point is to determine the mode of these 
baptisms that ran through fifteen hundred years of daily 
and hourly occurrence. Immersionists say they immersed 
themselves in the laver. We deny this, and for the fol- 
lowing insurmountable reasons : 

First. By the original command, already cited from 
Exodus, they were to wash, not in, but (ek) "out of it." 

* Chris. Baptist, vol. 5, 401. 

t Chris. Baptism, 167; Dr. Brents's Gospel Plan, 338-9, same in 
substance. A. Campbell cites the washings of persons in Leviticus xv 
andxvi entire, thus: In Leviticus xv, 5, 8, 10, 11, 13, 16, 18, 21, 22, 
27. Here are ten divers bathings etc. Also Leviticus xvi, 26, 27 ; 
xvii, 15, 16. Also in Numbers xix, 7, 8, 19. He has it " sixteen different 
bathings." "These are therefore called by Paul divers baptisms, or 
baptisms on divers occasions " ! 1 Chris. Baptism, 174, 177. Did mortal 
ever read such interpretations ? 

t It hardly deserves comment when a man tells us the Greek dia- 
phorois refers to different occasions. It means always different in kind 
— diverse. 



60 BAPTISM. 

The words (min, ek) in Hebrew and Greek are repeated 
over and again by the sacred writer. 

, Second. In every place in the Pentateuch where they 
were to wash in connection with the laver, it was either 
said " wash out of it," or simply " wash with water." * 

Third. If any thing in all the Bible is clearly and re- 
peatedly stated it is that if any thing or person needed 
ceremonial cleansing from defilement, needed baptism, in 
every case where such person or thing touched a person 
or object it was defiled. If he touched water in any ves- 
sel it could not be used. If the unclean touched water, 
unless a fountain or confluence of running waters, the 
water became unclean, and could not be used for drink- 
ing, cooking, washing meats, or any thing (Lev. xi, 29- 
36). If water in a vessel was touched by an unclean 
object the vessel, if of earthen matter, was to be broken ; 
if of wood, it must be rinsed out with water; if of metal- 
lic substance to endure fire, it must be burned out and 
sprinkled with water, and not used for seven days.f 

* ~Niijjerai vdart. In all the five books of Moses I found era, kv, only 
named once with wash with water. "We have seen its force already in 
such connections. 

t "These also shall be unclean unto you among the creeping things that 
creep upon the earth ; the weasel, and the mouse, and the tortoise after 
his kind. And the ferret, and the chameleon, and the lizard, and the 
snail, and the mole. These are unclean to you among all that creep : 
whosoever doth touch them, when they be dead, shall be unclean until 
the even. And upon whatsoever any of them, when they are dead, 
doth fall, it shall be unclean ; whether it be any vessel of wood, or rai- 
ment, or skin, or sack, whatsoever vessel it be, wherein any work is done, 
it must be put into water, and it shall be unclean until the even ; so it 
shall be cleansed. And every earthen vessel, whereinto any of them 
falleth, whatsoever is in it shall be unclean : and ye shall break it. Of 
all meat which may be eaten, that on which such water cometh shall be 
unclean ; and all the drink that may be drunk in every such vessel shall 
be unclean. And every thing whereupon any part of their carcass fall- 
eth shall be unclean ; whether it be oven, or ranges for pots, they shall 



BAPTISM OUT OF THE LAVER. 61 

" "Whatsoever the unclean person toucheth shall be un- 
clean." " He that toucheth the water of separation shall 
be unclean until even." " Whatsoever is in " any vessel 
wherein any unclean thing falleth " shall be unclean." 

Hence we have the plain Bible record for it that if 
any person needing ceremonial cleansing had dipped even 
his fingers or hand in the laver, or into any vessel of 
water, the water would be unclean, have to be thrown 
away, and the vessel broken if of earthen matter, burnt 
out if able to endure the fire. 

The ancient rabbins are full of additions to all this, so 
careful were they of outward ceremonies. In washing 
the hands, " If, therefore, the waters that went above the 
juncture (of the hand) return upon the hands, they are 
unclean." * If the return of the water that had touched 
other parts than the hand, by returning upon the hand 
defiled it again, how much more would immersion of 
the whole unclean person in the laver? And one after 
another would certainly not mitigate the matter. 

Fourth. The laver in Solomon's temple for these 
washings was cast at the fords of Jordan, placed in the 
temple (1 Kings vii, 23; 2 Chron. iv, 2-8), and was of 
great size, viz. ten cubits in diameter, five cubits deep — 
i. e. eight feet nine inches, and held water enough, accord- 
ing to Josephus, to make three hundred and seventy-five 
forty-gallon barrels of water. According to Dr. Gale it 
held nearly a thousand of our barrels of water. It was 
placed upon twelve molten oxen, which made it twenty- 
be broken down ; for they are unclean, and shall be unclean unto you. 
Nevertheless a fountain or pit, wherein there is plenty of water, shall be 
clean ; but that which toucheth their carcass shall be unclean." Lev. xi, 
29-36. Num. xxxi, 23, 24; xix, 21, 22; Lev. xv and xvi; vi, 28; vii, 
18-21. All these uncleannesses required baptism. Lev. xi, 26. 

*Lightfoot, Horse Heb. et TaL II, 417; Alsop, 38; and many like 
cases given. 



62 BAPTISM. 

one feet from the level of the floor to the top of the 
laver. * The water was brought in aqueducts under 
ground some four miles from a distant fountain, and 
made to rise up through the hollow pedestal into the 
basin, and then there were, first two, later twelve cocks 
at the basis out of which the water ran, at which the 
priests baptized. The laver was thus made twenty-one 
feet high to keep any unclean person from touching the 
water by which it would be defiled. 

If a person got into the vessel, then, he had, 1. To vio- 
late the express precept to "wash out of it; 2. He would 
violate all the facts in Leviticus and Numbers cited about 
not using defiled water; 3. He would violate the repeated 
precepts of the rabbins, who taught it " was better to die 
of thirst than disobey" the laws of rabbins. Lightfoot 
gives us many such facts ; 4. He would have to leap twenty- 
one feet high to get to the top; 5. When in the vessel he 
would have to swim or drown, as it "contained" the 
amount of water named in 2 Chronicles iv; 6. He would 
have to leap down twenty-one feet on the solid stone pave- 
ment ; 7. The vessel would then have to be emptied of all 
its water, burnt out, and cleansed for seven days before it 
could be used. All this is involved by the immersion the- 
ory; 8. All this must be done in the presence of multitudes 
of men and women — of course the clothes retained on the 
person. 

"The basis of it [the laver] was so contrived as to re- 
ceive the water which ran out of the laver at certain 
spouts. At these spouts the priests washed their hands 
and their feet before they entered upon their ministry; for 
if they had put their hands and feet into the laver the 

* In the Louisville debate I thought it by shortest measure fourteen 
feet. Walton shows it was twenty-one feet. 



BAPTISM OUT OF THE LAVER. 63 

water would have been defiled by the first that washed 
therein. And the sea of brass made by Solomon was so 
high that they could not put their feet into it. The Tal- 
mudists tell us there were twelve spouts or cocks, in the 
form of a woman's breast, to let the water out of the la- 
yer,"* etc. The mode of washing the meat out of the 
laver is given — "that on which such water cometh" 
(Lev. xi, 34). 

Fifth. Joseph us, who lived in the apostolic age, was a 
high-priest of vast learning and candor, and baptized daily 
himself at the laver. He interchanges wash and sprinkle 
in speaking of the laver. u The sea to be for the washing 
of the hands and the feet of the priests." " Whence the 
priests might wash their hands and sprinkle their feet" 
" When he [Moses] had sprinkled Aaron's vestments, 
himself and his sons. " f He washed Aaron and his sons. 

Sixth. The Bible habitually speaks of a person being 
washed, just as we and all people do who wash only a given 
part of the body. John xiii, 5-10, records where Christ 
washed the disciples' feet, yet said, "If I wash thee not," 
"He that is washed." In Matthew xxvi, 6-12, anointing 
the head with oil was done " to my body." Numbers viii, 7, 
applies the phrase "whole body;" in Greek (jzav to 6-cb/j.a), 
to the face. So Job ix, 30. Hence (John ii, 6) the jars of 
water were for the purification of the Jews — washing. But 
did they immerse in those little water-pots and violate all 
their laws on purification at the same time? 

Seventh. The Targum of Jonathan, being a paraphrase 
and not literal, like those of Onkelos and Ben Uzzial, 

* Brown's Antiquities, II, 139-141; Kitto's Cycle, Art. Laver; 
Encyclo. Kel. Knowledge, old edition, with pictures of it, and water 
running out for washing; "Walton's immense picture of it, vol. 1, 
Polyglott. 

t Antiquities, vol. 8, chap. 8, sees. 5, 6 ; vol. 3, chap. 6, sec. 2. 



64 BAPTISM. 

shows the same truth on this question. On Exodus xxx, 
19, where they were to "wash out of it," he has it, "They 
shall take for a washing of purification out of it* and 
Aaron and his sons shall sanctify (kadosh) with the waters 
their hands and feet." Again, " And put therein living 
waters for sanctifying, so that they should not fail nor be- 
come dead all days" — forever. "And Moses and Aaron 
and his sons received (nasab) out of it [water] for washing, 
and sanctified their hands and their feet out of it " (ram- 
yeah). 

Eighth. That is not all. In Christ's day, in addition to 
all these requirements — baptizing every time they touched 
a dead body, an unclean animal, or one who had touched 
the unclean or entered the house where the dead were — 
Mark vii, 3, 4 ; Luke xi, 38, and all Talmudic writers show 
that "all the Jews" as well as "the Pharisees" baptized 
every time they came from the market-place — public 
square of the city. A. Campbell, Anderson, and the Bap- 
tists translate Mark vii, 4, immerse. It is wash in our 
version. We ask immersionists how these Jews, in a coun- 
try so destitute of water as Palestine is from three to five 
months in every year, more or less, obtained water sufficient 
for such constant immersions? They tell us, then, of cis- 
terns twenty-two feet deep, sixteen feet wide, in some cases 
hewn out of solid rocks, in which water is kept for the dry 
seasons. Very well. But did they immerse their entire 
bodies in these cisterns? Here is a family of ten — hus- 
band and wife and eight sons and daughters. They bap- 
tized their various pieces of table furniture (verses 4, 8) 
as well as their " beds" Mr. Wilkes (Louisville Debate) 
and Dr. Graves, A. Campbell, Gale, and Carson, and Ing- 

* Sirach xxx, 1, 30: (3aTrri^ojLiEvoa cnro vetcgov k. t. "k. with the "wash" 
of Numbers xix ; Leviticus xi, 29-36 ; xv; xvi entire; etc. 



BAPTISM OUT OF THE LAVER. 65 

ham quote Maimonides, where they baptize their beds, in 
his day " part by part." These families often have five, 
ten, twenty, thirty servants, all of whom have to baptize 
every day from once to three or four times. Now who 
believes they all immersed themselves daily — men, women, 
male and female servants, ten to twenty — in the cistern of 
water out of which they daily drank, took water for cook- 
ing, etc.? Then they baptized their furniture and beds. 
Who believes they immersed these beds, couches, etc. daily 
in the cistern, and still repeated it daily for three months, 
yet daily used the water for drinking, cooking, etc. ? But 
you have to believe it to hold on to the immersion theory. 
But you know it is not true. Aside from the repeated 
laws already quoted decency tells us it is not true. Jews 
so doubly nice they would not allow themselves in 
Christ's day to touch a gentile or one unclean if possible 
to avoid it, and would not go in where Christ was being 
tried lest they by contact be denied — they drink water 
thus used ! ! Yet the immersion theory says they did ! ! 
No, sir; they all baptized by affusion. Now, then, the 
laver baptism extended through fifteen hundred years. 
Every Jew baptized every day, often several times. They 
generally numbered five and six millions. Let us put it 
at the lowest figure. Fifteen hundred years, three hundred 
and sixty -five days in a year, make five hundred and 
forty-seven thousand five hundred days. Then multiply 
those days upon the number of Jews ; put them at/our mil- 
lions on the average for fifteen hundred years — from Moses 
till the commission was given — we have ONE trillion 

SIX HUNDRED AND FORTY-FIVE BILLIONS FIVE HUNDRED 

millions (1,645,500,000,000) of instances of baptism, all 

by affusion, when John began to baptize Jews as a Jew 

that Christ might be made manifest to Israel. We can 

6 



66 BAPTISM. 

now all see the force of " baptize with water" Now, then, 
at first we saw that John, when only the few as yet came — 
no noise, no multitude yet named — the baptisms at Beth- 
any were so noiselessly carried on that it is only named 
by one writer, and then incidentally ; so not a word is said 
of multitudes at JEnon — the noise and flush of the crowds 
are all over. At Jordan we have the multitudes (Mark i, 
5 ; Matt, iii, 5)— " they at Jerusalem," as well as " all Ju- 
dea," etc. Now ivhy did he go to those three places, 
at two of which were running waters, we know, and plenty 
of it at the first one? when so few as yet came — no allu- 
sion is made to water at all — at Bethany or in Bethany 
simply. 

1. Such crowds, with all their animals, had to have, must 
have water. Round-lake Camp-meeting is not there be- 
cause of convenient places to immerse. Camp-meetings, 
armies encamped for a few weeks, have to have much water. 
Here are thousands of people for many weeks, some months. 
Then much water was needed. But, 

2. That much water had to be kunning water by the law 
of God. We cited many passages, especially Leviticus xi, 
38, showing that fountains — so the Syriac and Arabic ren- 
der iEnon — or "gathering together, flowing together " of 
waters could not be defiled, because running off constantly, 
and fresh clean water coming into their place. If it had 
been even a convenient lake one hundred feet square and 
fifty deep in the. middle, the moment one washed in it, or 
an unclean animal, person, or thing fell into it or stepped 
into it, or water running from your hands or face after 
ablution had fallen into it, it could not be used. But such 
crowds had to have water, use it for all customary pur- 
poses. Hence the running waters of the Jordan were 
sought. 



BAPTISM OUT OF THE LAVER. 67 

The moment the flush of the crowds is over John 
leaves the hot, low region of lower Jordan — the lowest 
spot above water on our globe, deep between ranges of 
hills, in about the latitude of Memphis, Tennessee, and so 
intensely hot that no city or village ever was built upon its 
banks in that region — and we next find him at JEnon near 
Salim, for there was much water there, not deep; the word, 
polla never meant deep, but " many waters " or fountains 
is far more correct, as the Syriac and Arabic have it. 
There was enough water in the springs of those mountain 
regions for the numbers coming now for all customary pur- 
poses. Hence we have here Bible reasons for all we see. 
They baptized in ^Enon with water. They had known no 
other mode than affusion for fifteen hundred years. Cus- 
tom demands its acceptance here as the recognized mode. 
The primary meaning of baptidzo settles it as the mode. 
Instead of the facts forcing us from the primary import 
here they all point to it as the only mode. And if we 
want current or general usage, that has been the usage 
fifteen hundred years. Nay, the Jews of those days tell 
us how much water was necessary to their ablutions in 
general. " They allot a one-fourth part of a log for the 
washing of one person's hands, it may be of two; half a 
log for three or four ; a whole log for five to ten, nay to one 
hundred, with this provision, saith Rabbi Jose, that the 
last that washed hath no less than a fourth part of a log 
for himself" (Lightfoot, Horae, ii, 254). A log is five 
sixths (j) of a pint. One person then washed with near- 
ly one fifth of a pint. Its mode is told us by Pocock 
also — aqua effusa evase, with water poured out of a vessel, 
cup, or bowl. Leigh gives the same citation. 

So well was it known that the baptisms of Mark vii, 
4, were all by sprinkling, that the learned Greeks who 



68 BAPTISM. 

duplicated manuscripts, translate baptisontai in that place 
rantisontai, " sprinkle themselves." The two oldest copies 
of the New Testament known thus translate it. Seven 
others do so. The reason was, that was a mere traditional 
obligation, and the baptism was not by divine authority. 
As it was not even by pouring in any case — always single 
in mode, and regarded by Christians as only a mode, they 
translate it sprinkle themselves. These are historic facts, 

WITHOUT METAPHORS. 

Hence, Theophylact, the Greek father, commenting on 
Luke xi, 38, says, " Deriding their foolish customs, I 
mean, purifying themselves (katharidzesthai) before eat- 
ing." The apostolic constitution, 66, alluding to the Jews, 
says, "Unless they baptize themselves daily they do not 
eat. Still further, unless they purify (katharosin) with wa- 
ter their couches and seats they will not use them at all." 
John ii, 6, tells us of the " water-pots, after the manner 
of the purifying of the Jews," which held two or three 
firkins apiece — i. e. six gallons. Could people immerse 
themselves in these jars of six gallons ? " Benaiah struck 
his foot against a dead tortoise, and went down to Siloam, 
where, breaking all the little particles of hail, he baptized 
himself."* He touched a dead body ; that required bap- 
tism. His baptism was performed by means of melted 
hail — a handful of water. Hence, Lightfoot, than whom 
we have no higher authority on such subjects, says, allud- 
ing to the cases of Mark vii, 4, " That the plunging of 
the whole body is not understood here may be sufficiently 
proved hence ; that such plunging is not used but when 
pollution is contracted from the more principal causes,f 
. . . for an unclean thing, ... from water of purifying, 

* Lightfoot, Horse Heb. et Tal., vol. 3, 292, we tebal. 

t And this only " later," as Pocock and Castell say and show. 



BAPTISM OUT OF THE LAVER. 69 

etc." (Rabbi Solomon).* "Baptismous washing applied to 
all these; ... in respect to some things, of washing 
only (that is, pouring water); and in respect of others, 
of sprinkling only, f 



THE LAVER-WASH AND MAIMONIDES. 

Elder Wilkes, J Dr. Graves, § and all other immersion- 
ists have relied on Maimonides, above all authorities to 
settle the issue between us and them on the import of 
wash among the Jews. They cite this Rabbi to prove that 
in all cases wash [rachats] involved a complete immersion 
of the whole body in water. It is thus cited: "Wher- 
ever in the law washing \rachats~] of the flesh or clothes 
is mentioned, it means nothing else than dipping of the 
whole body in a laver; for if a man dips himself all 
over [notice that wash himself all over is the word in 
Maimonides] except the tip of his little finger, he is still 
in his uncleanness." Not unbaptized. Below they quote 
again : " A bed that is wholly defiled, if he dip it part 
by part is pure." I have the original of this by the 
Rabbi. 

1. Dr. Graves, as always he seems to do, blunders as 
follows in introducing M., thus : " But I want to know 
how I am committed to the theory that the purifications 
of the Old Testament were so many baptisms ? I will tell 
him how I will commit myself to it. In every case of 
purification when taval is used, I will say that was by the 

* Lightfoot, Horse Heb. et Tal., vol. 2, 417, 418; Sol. in Relm., 
chap. 1. 

flbid. 

t Louisville Debate, 563. 

§ Graves, Carrolton Debate, pp. 113, 493; Ingham's Hand-book on 
Baptism, 373. 



70 BAPTISM. 

immersion of the whole body, but in no other cases"* (p. 
112, 113). The next point in this is that such a thing 
never occurs in the whole Bible. Taval is not once used 
for purification, or to accomplish its washing in a single 
place in the Bible. But, 

2. I will give a close and literal translation of this 
Rabbi: "Wherever in the law washing \i'achats\ occurs, 
either of the body \basha, flesh'] or of the garments, from 
\min\ defilement, nothing else is to be understood than the 
washing [tabelali] of the whole body at a fountain [or in 
conceptacle of water]. And that which is said [here 
extra defilement is described and omitted here], 'and he 
shall not wash [shatapJi] his hands with water/ is to be 
understood as if he said he must wash \_shitabul, tebal\ his 
whole body with water. And after the same order shall 
other impurities be judged of; so that if one should wash 
himself all over [Mo], except the extremity of his little 
finger, he is yet in his uncleanness." 

3. This was washing for extraordinary defilement, not 
ordinary purification. 

4. It is here shown even by that version of it that one 
may baptize himself without washing or dipping himself 
"all over." 

5. No question is here raised by the Rabbi about or- 
dinary baptism by perfusion or dipping, but whether for 
certain hinds of pollution " washing all over " was not 
necessary. 

6. It does not declare, taking their version, that dip- 
ping is necessary to baptism, but declares if any part in 
the case given be unwashed he is still unclean, simply. 

*Had Dr. G. cited Kabbi M. in the actual debate, the exposure 
would have followed in the next speech. I did not find out he had 
slipped it and his authors in the published debate till my eighth speech, 
where I answer it. 



BAPTISM OUT OF THE LAVER. 71 

7. It admits that complete immersion is not required 
even in complete defilement, but all parts must be touched 
by the water in such cases. "A bed that is wholly defiled, 
if a man dip it part by part, it is pure." Here their own 
citation shows that bury, cover, immerse, dip is no essen- 
tial point. First one part of the bed then another is put 
into the water for cleansing. This is not immersion in 
the sense Baptists, etc. mean — only a small part in at a 
time. Do Baptists dip a subject "part by part?" 

8. Let us analyze the further assumptions of immer- 
sionists here. 

First. The word used for this wash is rachats, which 
never means immerse or dip, but primarily is "to pour 
out, drip." See the chapter on Wash. 

Second. Kabas is used to define this word, which no 
lexicon ever renders by dip or immerse. 

Third. Shataph figures as the main word for their 
"dip," "immerse," which Gesenius defines by a "pouring 
rain," Furst by a " rain-gust," and is used (1 Kings xxii, 
38) for washing the chariot at the pool. Did he dip it? 

Fourth. Tabhal is used several times, which primarily 
means " to sprinkle," and all the greatest authorities tell 
us is used where the "object is merely touched by the 
liquid in part or in whole." * See tabhal. 

9. But after all this, Maimonides lived late in the 
twelfth century after Christ, was an Arab converted to 
Judaism in that century. He is just eleven hundred years 
too late to know of what he speaks only as he saw it in 
those dark ages. Against him we oppose Onkelos and 

*It may be noted, Dr. Graves, forgetting himself, introduces Dr. 
Alting (Debate, p. 493) as "so distinguished a scholar " on Rabbi Mai- 
monides's point, renders it "the washing of the whole body is either 
added or understood." Opera Tern. IV ; Com. on Epis. Heb. 220. That 
is well, and refutes his assertions about Alting and Maimonides. 



72 BAPTISM. 

Jonathan Ben Uzzial, who lived before Christ (see them 
quoted in the Laver), and Josephus, who lived in the days 
of Paul, and Pocock, who above all men examined Mai- 
monides, had all that Rabbi had and infinitely more be- 
sides, Castell, Lightfoot, Wetstein, Buxtorf, Leigh, Schind- 
ler, Stokius, Kimchi, and a host of others, besides the 
facts of the Bible in the laver baptisms. Of Maimonides, 
Dr. Gale, the most learned of all Baptists in Rabbinic 
learning, says, "As for Maimonides . . . [he was] per- 
fectly besotted in the idle dreams in which their boasted 
knowledge chiefly consists, and consequently even he can 
not be much depended on; besides he lived not above six 
hundred years ago, . . . therefore could know what was 
practiced in our Savior's time no better than many can 
now." Reflections on Wall, Wall, vol. 2, 102, ed. 1862, in 
two volumes. 

We dare not lose sight of the symbolic import of 
baptism if we wish to be scriptural in its use. As it had 
always been symbolic of the religious innocence or quali- 
fication effected in the sinner or priest by the " washing of 
regeneration," the spiritual cleansing, so Ephesians v, 25, 
26; Titus iii, 5; Hebrews x, 22, show that in the latest 
apostolic records baptism represented the spiritual cleans- 
ing, was symbolic of " sanctify," " cleanse," " wash." But 
it is "with pure water." No one dipped in a muddy or 
filthy pond or creek of water where stagnation and accu- 
mulated filth stain the water is baptized. His body is 
not "washed with pure water." As this is spiritual water 
alluded to, just as the heart sprinkled in the same verse 
is spiritual, yet all such metaphorical allusions have the 
literal as their basis. Hence none but pure water can con- 
stitute symbolic baptism. It is because of the supersti- 
tious uses baptism has been devoted to, and the unscrip- 



BAPTISM OUT OF THE LAVER. 73 

tural supposition that mode is the baptism, that has led 
to dipping in filthy, stenchy, foul holes of half mud, half 
filth, etc. that utterly disgraces the rite and obscures its 
beauty. 

If any one doubts the pure symbolic import of baptism 
let him examine in full its origin. 

1. Exodus xxix, 4-6; xxx, 18-22; Leviticus viii, 4-6; 
Numbers viii, 7. 

2. The allusions to it in the Prophets: Psalm li, 
1-10; Isaiah i, 16; iv, 4; xliv, 3; Ezekiel xvi, 9; xxxvi, 
25, 26. 

3. John's baptism (John iii, 23-26), where it was a "pu- 
rifying," and translated in the old iEthiopic and other 
ancient versions "baptism" (Matt, iii, 11) "with water 
unto (eis) repentance." 

4. The allusions recited above. Acts xxii, 16, compared 
with ix, 18, 19, "Be baptized and wash away thy sins in 
calling on the name of the Lord " — the six versions made 
before James's all thus read. Eph. v, 26; Titus iii, 5; 
Heb. x, 22. 

5. After John was imprisoned Christ called his apostles. 
Mark i, 1-4, 16-20; Luke iv entire; then v, 2-12, and vi, 
12-14; Matt, ix, 9, etc. From that day till after his death 
Christ does not have any one baptized, does not name 
Christian baptism to any one till just before he ascended 
(Matt, xxviii, 18, 19); and hence as John's baptism was 
only symbolic of the Spirit's cleansing, it follows it is 
only so still, as the commission made no limitation nor 
gave it any new force save the naming of the Father, 
Son, and Spirit. 

6. The apocryphal use is cleanse, and nothing more. 
Judith xii, 7 ; Eccles. xxxiv, 25 : Washeth — baptizes — from 
a dead body, " What is he profited by his cleansing if he 

7 



74 BAPTISM. 

touch it again?" So Tobit ii, 5 : Louo, wash, after touch- 
ing a dead body. 

7. As before shown, the real import and design of any 
rite is always involved in the ground-form, or elements 
used, and if a mere action involving not external elements, 
then in the proper import of the word used, as circum- 
cision. 

Hence in the lamb and its blood is found the true sym- 
bolism of the Passover, pointing to Christ our Passover. 

In the day God rested from labor is the ground of 
import to our Sabbath. 

In the meaning of circumcision in the Hebrew, cut off, 
separate, is the symbolism of circumcision — the heart sep- 
arated from sin (Col. ii, 12; Rom. ii, 28, 29), and the men, 
as Abraham, the Jews, etc., separated to themselves. 

Hence among all nations on earth in all ages water 
represents cleansing and innocence in its symbolism. It 
never symbolizes death, but represents just the reverse — 
life constantly. It never represents burial nor resurrec- 
tion. All that baptism was ever designed to represent is 
seen in its recognized import. 

We have seen that for fifteen hundred years baptism, 
from its institution as a rite till Christ came, was by affu- 
sion in all cases. That in all cases it was symbolic 
also. We will see in the future that the Jews constantly 
used words that meant both pour and sprinkle — the same 
word or words. The plentiful pouring out of the Spirit 
prophesied of so often may have led the apostles to the 
preference they give to pour over sprinkle. Hence we 
may justly suppose pouring became their favorite mode 
over sprinkling. It is preposterous to suppose that the 
Jews who believed in Christ and who, even late in the 
apostolic age, like Paul, kept " the purifying of the Jews " 



BAPTISM OUT OF THE LAVER. 75 

(Acts xxiv, 18; John ii, 6), as he was "purified in the 
temple," were immersed for baptism when affusion had 
been the universal practice for fifteen hundred years. 
Unless some fact shows a change we are to suppose the 
old practice was continued. Jesus gave the commission 
(Matt, xxviii, 18, 19, 20) under which we today act — dis- 
ciple all nations, all the gentiles, "baptizing them, ,, etc. 
He does not say " with water," for it had been used fifteen 
hundred years — was well understood. He makes no change 
in its design, mode, purport. The only modification given 
was, " In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of 
the Holy Spirit." Hence the long-established mode was 
continued. 



76 BAPTISM. 



CHAPTER VIII. 

Baptism — Revival of Leaening — Classics — 
Lexicons. 

From the dawning of the Reformation, 1520-1522, till 
the present time there has been a sad and almost ruin- 
ous war of words on the question of how much water is 
required to administer the ordinance of baptism. As the 
immersionist side was espoused in the main by very igno- 
rant and fanatical and even turbulent men at first, and 
the church was settled by the state, scholars took little or 
no interest in the controversy. Being satisfied that affu- 
sion was scriptural they devoted their attention to other 
and (to them) more interesting matters. Not until the 
middle of the seventeenth century did any eminent scholar 
defend the extreme views of the anti-pedobaptists. The 
pedobaptists devoted all their attention, so far as baptism 
interested them, to a defense of infant baptism, especially 
from the historic standpoint. 

In England since the days of Dr. Gale, and more re- 
cently Dr. Carson ; and in the United States, especially 
within the last forty years, it has become the most ab- 
sorbing topic in the catalogue of religious dogmas. In 
Germany it has never excited any attention among the 
learned worthy of notice. 

The parties favoring affusion labored under a great 
disadvantage by allowing both sides to adhere to a course 
of argumentation destitute of, and antagonistic to, all 



REVIVAL OF LEARNING. 77 

sound and recognized rules and laws of philology. Word- 
building, root-derivation, and all the laws by which schol- 
ars arrive at a correct knowledge of the force and mean- 
ing of words were ignored, and a wholly unscientific 
method persued. The immersionists and many pedobap- 
tists treated the subject as if their interpretation of Ro- 
mans vi, 3, 4; Colossians ii, 11, 12, settled the meaning 
of the word, and so philology was ignored. Had Frank- 
lin, Morse, Galileo, Kepler, Newton, and Bacon investi- 
gated the phenomena of nature from such unscientific 
standpoints the world would still be in profound ignorance 
of electricity, philosophy, and astronomy. 

The great body of pedobaptists who favor immersion, 
such as Selden, Wall, and many others, though admitting 
the scripturalness of affusion, assumed that Jewish prose- 
lyte baptism was practiced before and in the apostles' days. 
Baptist writers contend that it was a century or more, not 
to say three or four centuries, later than the apostolic age. 
The Jews of the Middle Ages baptized and still baptize 
gentile proselytes generally by immerson. Hence Selden, 
Wall, and other pedobaptists who favor immersion do so 
almost exclusively in the belief that the Jewish proselyte 
immersion of the fourth century A.D. was apostolic in its. 
date and also perpetuated by the apostles. It is not fair to 
take the evidence of these men in favor of immersion, as 
all Baptists do, and yet utterly repudiate the only ground 
and evidence that these distinguished scholars relied on as 
furnishing the proofs of immersion. 

Another fact has misled many and puzzled not a few. 
The allusions to the Spirit of God moving upon the wa- 
ters; hovering over the waters; the voice of the Lord 
upon the flood, etc. induced the settled conviction among 
many fathers, such as Tertullian, Origen, and others, that 



78 BAPTISM. 

the Spirit of God imparted a divine efficacy and virtue to 
the water, by which those who received baptism had the 
grace of God imbibed from the water. It had a "med- 
ical virtue" that sanctified the nature of man. The Jews 
superstitiously fell into the same error on the approach of 
the Dark Ages, and hence they would either merse the 
whole body under the water, or mersed the person waist 
or neck deep; both were practiced to imbibe the saving 
grace, while the baptismal water was poured upon the 
l^ead. The many ancient pictures representing Christ and 
others as baptized standing in Jordan are illustrations. 
These superstitions led to the more general practice of 
immersion in the Dark Ages. The Latin and Greek fa- 
thers practiced trine-immersions — " three dips for one bap- 
tism" — for many centuries. A single dip for baptism was 
wholly unknown for the first three centuries of the church 
after Christ. Hence immersion was the prevailing, almost 
universal mode in Europe when learning was revived in 
the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. It is only within 
the last forty years that the Indo-European languages, 
Greek, Latin, etc., have been studied from scientific stand- 
points, and those great laws and affinities of language 
discovered that underlie a correct knowledge of those 
languages. So of the Hebrew, though in the seventeenth 
century Hebrew and Syriac advanced far beyond Greek, 
but retrograded again. 

After Greek learning was lost in the western part of 
Europe, for some seven centuries it remained unknown, 
unread throughout Germany, England, France, Italy, etc. 
Not until the fall of Constantinople under the Turks, May 
29, 1453, was it revived. The Vatican library was not 
founded till under Nicholas V, 1447. In 1445 it con- 
tained only five thousand volumes. WyclifiVs (1382) and 



CLASSICS. 79 

the German versions (1460-1470) were from the Vulgate 
Latin. They knew nothing about Greek. 

In the beginning of the fourteenth century only four 
classical manuscripts were found in the Library of Paris, 
and they were Latin. The Academical Library of Oxford 
in the year 1300 a.d. consisted of a few tracts. Greek was 
not introduced at Oxford nor in England till A.D. 1485 
to 1509.* It was not introduced in France till 1458 nor 
in Germany till 1471. Even Latin was so little known 
in classical forms that in 1254 the names of Virgil and 
Cicero were unknown in Italy and France. In 1513 Gar- 
land said Greek could not be read in France. The first 
effort to teach Greek in England was under Grocyn (1485- 
1519). The first Greek grammar published (Lascaris's) in 
France in 1476. The first lexicon (Craston's) in France 
in 1480 — " a very imperfect vocabulary." f "For many 
years" this "continued to be the only assistance of the 
kind to which a student could have recourse. The author 
was an Italian." % 

In 1521 the first Greek characters appear in England 
in a book at Cambridge. § In 1533 "some Englishmen 
began to affect a knowledge of Greek." || In Scotland it 
was not yet pretended, but began to be studied in 1534. 
Not till 1550 was a Greek lexicon or grammar printed in 
England, ^f The first editions of Greek authors were 
very defective, and generally later writers, such as iElian, 
Epictetus, Plutarch, or mere selections of Hesiod, etc., 
up to 1523. The Etymologicum Magnum of Phavorinus, 
whose real name was Guarino, published at Rome in 1523, 
was of some importance, while no lexicon but the very 

• Hallam, Middle Ages, 548. t Hist. Lit., "by Hallam, vol. 1, 130. 
% Ibid. I Hist. Lit., I, 182, by Hallam. 

|| Ibid. 183. K Hist. Lit., I, 184, Hallam. 



80 BAPTISM. 

defective one of Craston had been printed."* It is only 
a compilation. 

Erasmus taught Greek at Cambridge where Tyndale, 
the first pretending translator of the Greek Testament 
into English, studied (1503-1514). These wretched and 
defective works were their only sources of information — 
Craston's their only lexicon. Yatable (Vatabulus) was 
the first Hebrew professor in France (1534 to 1545). He, 
in infancy of the study of Hebrew in Western Europe, is 
often paraded by immersionists as a great authority, even 
by such men as Gale, Ingham, etc. 

With these encumbrances we are surprised at what Tyn- 
dale, Calvin, Luther, and others accomplished; but all can 
see what a miserable subterfuge it is to quote the opinions 
of these men as an ultimate authority, or on a primary 
meaning on baptidzo and bapto, when, however gigantic 
their intellects, yet the age ; the very defective aids ; the 
non-appearance as yet of the best Greek writers ; the prev- 
alence of the later and defective Greek writers over the 
earlier and better, as far as publications Went, all show 
that verbal criticism was sadly defective and philology 
unknown. Of Luther, the Hebrew lexicographer " Simon 
has charged him with ignorance of Hebrew, and when we 
consider how late he came to the study of either that or the 
Greek language, and the multiplicity of his employments, 
it may be believed that his knowledge of them was far from 
extensive." Eichorn accounts for it "in the lamentable de- 
ficiency of subsidiary means in that age" (iii, 317). Yet 
" from this (Luther's) translation, however, and from the 
Latin Vulgate, the English one of Tyndale and Coverdale, 
published in 1535 or 1536, is wholly taken." f 

•Ibid, ill. 

t Hallam, Hist. Lit., I, 201 ; Simon, Hist. Critique, V. T., p. 432 ; 
Andres, XIX, 169. 



REVIVAL OF LEARNING. 81 

Such were the materials on which James's version is 
wholly based, such the aids of that age. Scotus, Aquinas, 
etc., also are paraded to decide baptidzo by Booth, Ing- 
ham, etc., when they never saw a Greek alphabet in their 
lives ! Such is the treatment this question has received 
ever since it was mooted in the sixteenth century. Up to 
1550 " no Greek grammars or lexicons were yet printed 
in England " (Hallam).* They were yet dependent mainly 
on such writers as Craston, Aldus, etc. ; those works " gen- 
erally very defective through the slight knowledge of the 
language that even the best scholars then possessed."! We 
ask now, of what value are the opinions of such author- 
ities in verbal criticism as compared with those that are the 
result of a scientific and exhaustive examination of the 
facts involved? We constantly see the men who flourished 
in and about those times, Beza, Casaubon, Calvin, Zwingle, 
Luther, paraded on this question, with hosts of far inferior 
ones, when on such matters their opinions are of no more 
value than they would be on astronomy at that time. Many 
great and essential facts and principles in language, as essen- 
tial to accuracy in philology as the microscope, telescope, 
and spectroscope are to science now, were wholly un- 
known to that age. Not till after Tyndale's New Testa- 
ment was printed (1526), based on Luther's (1522), did the 
first eifort at real lexicography appear — the Commentarii 
Lingum Grazcai, Paris, 1529. " This great work of Bud- 
dseus has been the text-book and common storehouse of 
succeeding lexicographers . . . His authorities and illus- 
trations are chiefly drawn from the prose writers of Greece, 
the historians, orators, and fathers. [Note that.'] With 
the poets he seems to have had a less intimate acquaintance " 
(Hallam.)J Yet this very class, poets, are the first by 

* Hist. Lit., I, 184. t Hallam, Hist. Lit., I, 248. 

t Hist. Lit., I, 178. 



82 BAPTISM. 

long centuries that use bapto or baptidzo, from whom we 
could best trace its primary meaning, being the first by- 
many centuries that can give us light here. Only on 
words of jurisprudence, legal terms, did Buddseus bestow 
pains (Hallam). Hence a lexicon as late as 1537 abounds 
" in faults and inaccuracies of every description " (ibid. 
178). In 1562 appeared Robert Constantine's Greek lex- 
icon at Basle. Scaliger speaks of it and its author "in a 
disparaging tone " (Hallam). Yet he may have underrated 
it. The Quarterly Review observes, by one of its modern 
critics, that " a very great proportion of the explanations 
and authorities in Stephens's Thesaurus are borrowed from 
it" (Hallam).^ As this is the lexicon whence so many 
others came to the world, its make-up is all important. Of 
Constantine's lexicon it is added, "The principal defects 
are, first, the confused and ill-digested arrangement of the 
interpretation of words ; and secondly, the absence of all 
distinction between primitives, and derivatives." He was 
assisted by H. Stephanus. Says Hallam, after Constan- 
tine's lexicon was improved, 1591, " It is extremely defective 
and full of errors." f Yet Stephanus transfers " a very 
great proportion of the explanations and authorities" of 
this defective work to his own great work. 

It was only in this way he could compile so enormous 
a folio work (now with additions making ten folio vol- 
umes) in twelve years. Buxtorf spent thirty years on 

* Hist. Lit., I, 250. 

t Ibid. 250. Since writing the above I have secured Max Muller's 
works, and in vol. 4, Chips from a German Workshop, p. 209, ed. 1876, 
where he says, "Even more pernicious to the growth of sound ideas 
was the study of etymology, as formerly carried on in schools and uni- 
versities. Every thing here was left to chance or to authority, and it was 
not unusual that two or three etymologies of the same word had to be 
learnt, as if the same word might have had more than one parent." 
Gesenius is an eminent example of this error. 



REVIVAL OF LEARNING. 83 

one lexicon, only one folio volume, and CastelPs lexicon 
aggregates three hundred years' labor, two folio volumes. 
Stephen's Thesaurus (lexicon) appeared in 1572. Of it 
Hallam says truly (for his day, thirty to forty years ago), 
it "is still the single Greek lexicon; one which some have 
ventured to abridge or enlarge, but none have presumed 
to supersede." Scapula published an abridgment of Ste- 
phanus in 1579. After this age a for another century 
mankind was content, in respect to Greek philology, to 
live on the accumulations of the sixteenth ; and it was not 
till after so long a period had elapsed that new scholars 
arose, more exact, more philosophical, more acute," etc. 
(Hallam).* Hedericus, Pasor, Schrevelius, etc. are only 
abridgments, while Donnegan, Dunbar (first edition), and 
many others are mere English translations and abridg- 
ments. Not till Schneider, Passow, Rost, etc., in the past 
fifty years, was there a real advance made in Greek lexi- 
cography. Passow made the first real advance toward 
science and accuracy. As Tyndale and Luther had to rest 
on such miserable help, and really, mainly, simply trans- 
lated the Vulgate Latin, not the Greek, so James's trans- 
lators adopted theirs with but little change, none on bap- 
tism, and had to rely on these helps alone. Hence they 
adhere so constantly to the Latin Vulgate. All these 
lexicons were for classic Greek, not a New Testament lex- 
icon was yet produced. Indeed they knew not enough 
about Greek to know the facts now universally conceded, 
that the difference in restrictively religious words and 
those applied to ordinances is very great. Comparative 
philology is wholly a modern science. The discoveries of 
Grimm, Bopp, Max Miiller, in philology generally (vol. 
iv, Chips from a German Workshop, etc.) ; the labors of 
•Hist. Lit, I, 261. 



84 BAPTISM. 

Fiirst, Ewald, Hupfeld, Delitzch, in Semitic tongues; 
Freund, Schiller, etc., in Latin; as well as Passow, Kiih- 
ner, Rost, Palm, Pape, in Greek, have advanced these 
departments immensely, and the work is only fairly 
begun. 

To return now: The lexicography of the past centu- 
ries, as well as all the English versions, were wholly by 
immersionists — called dipping then — under immersion 
influences and laws. Yet have they not filled the 
land with the cry of pedobaptist lexicons, concessions, ver- 
sions, as if they were affusionists ? 

Dr. Conant, Baptist (Baptizein, p. 138-9), quotes the 
statutes of England from Edward VI (1549) to Charles 
II (1662) for dipping as the law, save in cases where a 
physician certified that the child was too delicate to be 
dipped. A. Campbell quotes the same (Ch. Baptism, pp. 
192-200). See Louisville Debate, pp. 522-3, and M. Stuart 
on Baptism, pp. 152-3, and Introduction by J. B. Graves, 
p. 24, where it is proved "that the English Church prac- 
ticed immersion down to the beginning of the seventeenth 
century, when a change to the method of sprinkling grad- 
ually took place." But James's version followed the 
Bishops' Bible, both followed Tyndale's, on baptism in 
New Testament. It is a reprint of that of 1526 in these 
respects. At this time all agree no change in favor of 
sprinkling had been thought of in England or France. 
Tyndale was an out-and-out immersionist, as Graves, 
Conant, A. Campbell, etc. prove. A. Campbell quotes 
him to this effect, as well as Conant (Baptism, p. 140), and 
adds, "The translators of the common version were all, 
or nearly all, genuine Episcopalians, and at the very time 
they made the version were accustomed to use a liturgy 
which made it the minister's duty, in the sacrament of 



REVIVAL OF LEARNING. 85 

baptism, 'to take the child and dip it in the water' con- 
tained in the font. I have seen copies of James's version, 
printed in 1611, which contain the Psalms and service 
of the church, in which frequent allusions are made to 
immersion, all indicative of the fact that it was then 
[1607-1611] regarded as the primitive and proper bap- 
tism; consequently, these translators accepted the king's 
appointment and restrictions, to retain baptize and bap- 
tism rather than translate them,* and on no occasion 
favored the innovation of sprinkling by any rendering or 
note marginal in that translation." 

Benedict, the great Baptist historian, quotes Ivimey's 
History of English Baptists (vol. 1, pp. 138-140) thus of 
the years 1616 to 1633, in England: "Immersion being 
incontrovertibly the universal practice in England at that 
time," etc. (p. 337). I presume this does not mean that 
individuals at that time were not baptized by pouring at 
least, but that immersion was practiced over all the king- 
dom — was general. It agrees with the facts of Wall (vol. 
2, p. 581) and note there as to Dr. Whittaker's influence, 
beginning 1624. 

Since the above was written Dr. Graves (Debate, p. 
425) quotes Wall, part 2, chap. 9, and indorses it as say- 
ing, "As for sprinkling, properly called, it seems it was at 
1645 just then beginning and used by very few. It must 
have begun in the disorderly times after 1641, for Mr. 
Blake, who lived in England in 1644, had never used it 
nor seen it used." Notice now the clearly-made-out facts : 

1. James's version, so far as baptism is concerned, is 

Tyndale's, 1526 — a real immersionist. 

* There is no special restriction as to baptism in his instructions. 
The fact that all versions in kindred tongues, from the Itala, Jerome, 
Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale to James's always anglicised the word 
was sufficient reason for it. 



86 BAPTISM. 

2. Not till after the appearance of Dr. Whittaker's 
work (1624), fourteen years after James's version was 
completed and thirteen years after it was published (1611), 
did any one advocate sprinkling. 

3. As late as 1 645 sprinkling was only beginning to be 
practiced. 

4. Still as late as 1662 the civil statutes re-enacted dip- 
ping, and Wesley, as a British subject and chaplain to 
Governor Oglethorpe, as late as 1736 rigidly adhered to it 
in the case of Mrs. Parker's child, Georgia being then a 
British colony. 

5. James's translators were educated by immersionists 
altogether, used lexicons and notes wholly steeped in im- 
mersion prejudices, under immersion laws. Hence, truly, 

6. They never favored sprinkling " by any rendering." 
No, they translate it that Christ went "straightway up out 
of the water " in utter violation of all Greek -usage, and 
where in the Pentateuch it is " wash with water n repeatedly 
they render it "bathe in water," in utter contempt of the 
Greek, Hebrew, and common sense, as if it were a medical 
and not a religious rite, cleansing, washing, bathing not 
being the object. 

Buddseus never studied the older and purer Greek writ- 
ers at all. He only studied closely the law-terms of any. 
His is the great lexicon till Stephanus. He completes his 
enormous work in twelve years; copies large parts from 
Con stan tine, a work full of defects, blunders, errors. Many 
of the best Greek writers were not accessible, not edited 
yet or convenient to him. They came to their work and 
to baptidzo not as scientists, not as philologists should, but 
crammed with superstitious ideas of the "magical effect of 
baptism," looking at it largely as settled by ecclesiastics, 
carrying thus the huge bulk of the rubbish of the accumu- 



REVIVAL OF LEARNING. 87 

lating superstitions of a thousand years. Yet they are 
paraded as if prejudiced in favor of affusionists ! They 
did the best they could. They are a marvel of success, 
considering their age and chances. On baptidzo or bapto 
Buddseus and Stephanus fall hundreds of years short of 
the earlier or literal earlier use of these words. This will 
come up in due time. The ignorance, the prejudices of 
centuries had to be overcome. All the talk of Casaubon, 
Beza, Suicer, Witsius, Vossius, etc., etc. about originals, 
etc. is based on the conceits of those times, overthrown 
by all parties since and rejected by all men. Yet these 
critics and lexicons are far more consistent and reliable 
than many such men as Lange, Conybeare and Howson, 
etc., who assume that Paul (Rom. vi, 3, 4) dogmatically 
settles a question of philology and science. But with all 
their prejudices and unripened knowledge of language, and 
unscientific processes, they overwhelmingly sustain our po- 
sition, as will be shown when we quote them. We charge 
not them with willful conduct. Prejudices are often honest, 
and superstition is both sincere and terribly in earnest very 
often. The facts they saw were enough to convince them, 
and the facts were valuable as far as they went ; but in ac- 
counting for the facts they were like the old astronomers — 
wild as to the causes, the laws of language. 



88 BAPTISM. 



CHAPTER IX. 

Changes in Meaning — Classic and New Testament 
Greek — Primary and Derived Meanings. 

The way in which classic Greek has been used in this 
controversy is not only unscientific and onesided, but 
persistently self-contradictory, as all will see. Were the 
parties appealing to it as decisive of the controversy con- 
sistent, they would abide their own decisions. Not one 
of them has ever done so; not one ever will do so. 
While classic Greek may and will prove a great help in 
determining the philology of the word, the action, the mean- 
ing of the word as a secular word, it can not aid at all in 
determining the religious force and application of baptidzo 
for reasons that will soon be presented. We will soon see 
Conant, Cox, Ingham, Carson, A. Campbell, Halley, Mell, 
Gale, the whole body of immersionists, shrinking from 
their classic proofs when they come to the New Testament. 
Their "drench," "sink," "overflow," "overwhelm," "in- 
toxicate," " make drunk," " burden with taxes," " soaked," 
all give way. If classic Greek settles its use, why abandon 
these in carrying it into the New Testament? As for our- 
selves, we are perfectly willing to settle the force of the 
action of baptidzo by an appeal to classic Greek, but for 
its use and design as a religious ordinance classic Greek 
affords no help, gives no light. 

Let us see the consistency of the other side. Of sixty- 
three occurrences in consecutive order Dr. Conant renders 



CHANGES IN MEANING. 89 

baptidzo "whelm" and "overwhelm" fifty-three times, 
" immerse " ten times. This sheds much light on the sub- 
ject and will aid in discovering the primary meaning of the 
word. And that is the main aid afforded by classic Greek. 

Granting, as we do, that " whelm," " overwhelm " are 
the prevailing meanings of the word in certain periods, 
whence sinking is the result, hence to sink (immerse) ; this 
clearly shows that immerse is derivative. It must be re- 
membered that we have Greek literature centuries before 
we have baptidzo. We have bapto, its root, centuries prior 
to baptidzo. Both words may have been in use centuries 
in works that never have reached the days of book pub- 
lishing or printing. Words are always changing their 
meanings. W T ho can tell what changes these words have 
undergone during those centuries ? We have one way of 
learning — the laws of philology alone affording any help. 
The great body of words in all our European and Asiatic 
tongues so far as known are perpetually changing. 

We must notice these two facts, viz. that, first, words 
constantly change their meanings, and second, the differ- 
ence between classic and biblical usage. Noah Webster 
says, " Words which have been long retained have often 
lost their old meanings and taken on new ones. In the 
combination and construction of words, in phrase and 
idiom, the changes have yet been more numerous. . . . 
These differences are mainly lexical and rhetorical rather 
than grammatical."* Again, " We must have respect chiefly 

• N. Webster's Brief Hist. Lang., Diet., p. xxvii, ed. 1865. Those who 
wish to examine the subject more thoroughly may consult Planck, I, 
pp. 13-23; Tittman, Synon., I, 202; Hermeneutical Manual, by Fair- 
bairn, 93; Ed. Robinson's Intro. (Preface) to Greek 1ST. T. Lexicon, 
V-VII. Hist. Art. in Bib. Repos., Ap., 1841 ; Geo. Campbell's Prelim. 
Dis., I, 30 ; "Walton's Prolegomena on Syriao Versions, I, 92 ; Liddell 
& Scott's Greek Lex., Intro., xx, xxii; M. Stuart, Bib. Repos., Ap., 
1833 ; Home's Intro., vol. 1 ; Winer's Idioms, 26-34. 
8 



90 BAPTISM. 

to the usus loquendi, the current sense or established usage 
at the time, to this more than to their etymology. . . . The 
ultimate use scarcely exhibits a trace of the primal signifi- 
cation. " 

Carson, the Baptist, so often quoted says, " I maintain 
that in figures there is no different meaning of the word. 
It is only a figurative application. The meaning of the 
word is always the same " (Baptism, p. 57). 

Since the above was prepared for the press Dr. Graves, 
in the Carrollton debate, was so pressed that he assumed the 
absurd and marvelous position that the current meaning 
was the primary meaning. Pages 253-4 he says, u The 
definition that all lexicographers place first is the only real 
and proper definition." Again, page 254, " There are t no 
settled principles of philology by which we can conclu- 
sively determine the current definition of terms by their 
etymology. v But at least some and the most essential " prin- 
ciples of philology " are now unanimously settled, namely, 
that we must trace the history of each word and find its 
earliest meaning — its " primal signification," as Webster 
says — then, by its later history, how it took on other mean- 
ings. All scholars are agreed on these principles since 
Passow's day. But why does Dr. G. become so alarmed 
at these principles? Truth can not suffer from them. He 
goes on worse still : " It is true that very often the etymo- 
logical is the real physical sense of the term [it is the rad- 
ical, primal meaning that applies first to 'physical ob- 
jects/ objects of ' sense '] ; but then, words [hear that, 
will you] so drift away from this that not a shadow of their 
etymological meaning remains." He cites prevent, etc., and 
urges once its primary meaning was " to go before, pre- 
cede ;" " now its primary " is " to hinder, etc. ! ! " This is 
rich, racy, and rare. It is astonishing that a human could 



CHANGES IN MEANING. 91 

titter such ridiculous jargon as this. Fairbairn above uses 
the very words of Webster. Words so change — just as Dr. 
G. says, they drift away, etc. — " that the ultimate use [cur- 
rent usage] scarcely exhibits a trace of primal significa- 
tion" (Her. Man., page 93). 

PRIMARY MEANINGS. 

Fowler, History and Grammar of English Language, 
says, " Words thus in current use sometimes escape alto- 
gether from their original meaning." Jahn, the great 
German critic, in his Introduction to the Old Testament, 
p. 95, sec. 31, says, " Etymology, that is, the investigation 
of the primary signification of words and of the maimer in 
which other significations have arisen. [Italics his.] By 

THE PRIMARY SIGNIFICATION IS MEANT THAT WHICH 
THE INVENTORS OF THE LANGUAGE ORIGINALLY 

affixed to A WORD." So Gesenius, Ernesti, Geo. Camp- 
bell, and Havernick hold, and every standard on earth. 
Yet Dr. G. had to cut loose and drift out in a wild sea of 
breakers, a midnight of nonsense and absurdity, to evade 
the force of our facts, repudiating Carson utterly as well as 
all other authorities. 

Dr. Ed. Robinson's Greek Lexicon, New Testament, 
1865: "The scholar who would pursue the study of any 
language critically and philologically does not rest until 
he has traced each word to its origin; investigated its 
primitive form and signification; noted the various forms 
and senses in which it has been current in the different 
epochs and dialects of the language; and the manner 
and order in which all these are deduced from the prim- 
itive one and from each other," etc. (Preface, iv). He 
urges that only thus " is the scholar master of the word 



92 BAPTISM. 

in question. This embraces the relations in which it 
stands to other words in construction and phrases and 
the various modifications which it has undergone in these 
respects." 

Dr. Carson, Baptist, on Baptism, p. 23, justly says, 
"The just and most obvious method of ascertaining the 
meaning of a word is to examine its origin and use in 
the language." This is our method. 

" For together with the primary signification of the act 
for the disciples its second universal, Christian, moral sig- 
nification is established " (Lange on John xiii, 10, p. 409). 

ROOTS AND THEIR MEANINGS. 

Wm. H. Green's Hebrew Grammar, third edition, 1875, 
p. 92, sec. 67 : " Roots do not enter in their nude or prim- 
itive form into the current use of language, but they 
constitute the basis upon which all actually occurring 
words, with the exception of the inorganic interjections are 
constructed. The second stage is the word itself in its 
simple uninfected state." This is "the radical idea" with 
the precise conception intended. The second stage is as 
"in the actual utterances of speech, so modified by inflec- 
tions as to suggest the definite qualifications of the idea," 
tense, mood, etc., etc. First. In a word the root is not 
in actual current use. Second. The word is uninflected. 
All inflections modify the word, and in this stage the 
radical idea is brought into our precise conception intend- 
ed, etc. 

Dr. Carson, Dr. Graves's idol (p. 280) takes exactly the 
same view that these and all standards agree on. 

Last and greatest of all on this subject we cite Max 
Miiller (1876), a work issued since the preparation of these 



CHANGES IN MEANING. 93 

pages, since the debate at Carrollton — Chips from a Ger- 
man Workshop, vol. iv, p. 218, which settles it forever: 
" It is one of the fundamental laws of etymology that in 
tracing words back to their roots we have to show that 
their primary, not their secondary meanings, agree with the 
meaning of the root.'' This later meaning, current, he 
calls "the historical development of the meanings." See 
also page 216. 

Fowler, the learned author of the History and Gram- 
mar of the English Language, sets this matter in its true 
light. He says, " 1. The question may arise whether, in 
a given sentence, there is a rhetorical form ? Now it must 
be conceded that it is not always easy to answer this ques- 
tion. . . . The number of radical w T ords in a language is 
comparatively few, and are chiefly applied to physical 
objects. As men found the stock of their ideas increasing, 
instead of inventing new terms to describe them they 
applied old words with an extended or changed mean- 
ing; or, what is the same thing, used them figuratively. In 
this way the great body of words in a language, in one 
stage of their history or another, has been used tropically. 
The word imagination, derived from image, a term applied 
to its sensible object, was, on its first application to a men- 
tal faculty or operation, tropical. But it ceased to be 
tropical when it had been used so long that its secondary 
meaning became indissolubly fixed as the principal one, 
or indeed to most minds as its only one. Imagination 

CAN NOT NOW BE CONSIDERED AS A FIGURATIVE TERM. 

It has lost its tropical meaning, at least to the mass of read- 
ers if not to the scholar. What is true of imagination is 
true of a vast number of words." 

Fairbairn says in his fourth rule to interpret words of 
the Bible, " In settling the meaning of words, we must 



94 BAPTISM. 

have respect chiefly to the usus loquendi, the current sense, 
or established usage at the time" (p. 93). Italics his. He 
then shows that words so far depart from their radical 
meanings "that the ultimate use scarcely exhibits a trace 
of the primal signification" (p. 93). Villain was once a 
dependent serf simply. Sycophant once meant only an 
accuser, then false accuser, now a fawning flatterer. Yet 
in Greek it originally meant a big shower. 

Winer, a universal standard, without a superior in the 
department of New Testament grammatical use, treats the 
subject of classical use and grammatical rules with admir- 
able judgment. Idioms, pp. 26, 27, he shows that in Alex- 
ander's time and on the Greek " underwent an internal 
change of a twofold nature," the Attic its basis, " and there 
arose a language of popular intercourse," this became 
prominently Macedonian. This, differing especially in the 
" provinces of Asia and Africa, constituted the basis of the 
style of the Septuagint and the Apocrypha as well as the 
New Testament." He shows that "the Jews in Egypt 
and Palestine learned the Greek first by intercourse with 
the Greeks, not from books." This was the case emi- 
nently as to " the LXX, New Testament writers, and the 
authors of many (Palestine) Apocrypha. A few of the 
learned Jews, who valued and studied Greek literature, 
approached nearer to the written language, as Philo and 
Josephus." Winer then says in a note, " That the style of 
the latter (Josephus) can not be accounted the same with 
that of the Septuagint or of the New Testament will be 
readily perceived by a comparison of the sections in the 
earlier books of the Antiquities with the parallel ones of 
the Septuagint" (p. 27). In the peculiarities of the New 
Testament Greek he shows with Planck, Sturz, and Lo- 
beck that "entirely new words and formulas were con- 



CHANGES IN MEANING. 95 

structed," of which " baptisma," baptism, is given as one 
(p. 30). Now how can classic Greek determine the mean- 
ing of a word never in use in any classic author ? He then 
shows that into this New Testament dialect came " foreign 
intermixtures," and their Greek style took not only the 
general complexion of their mother tongue (Hebrew), 
which showed itself in monotony and circumlocution, but 
more especially its inflexions. . . . 

Hebraisms and Aramseisms (Syriac shades) are more 
numerous in lexicography than grammar. Lexical Hebra- 
isms soon became established, consisting in extension of 
meaning, etc. Hence originated a Jewish Greek, which 
native Greeks generally did not understand, and therefore 
despised." So Hug., Introduction to New Testament, 
vol. 1, 137, Buttman, Runner, Jelf, and all writers agree 
in all this. How absurd, then, to use a literature — 
classic Greek — as all immersionists do, to show the 
meaning of baptism in the New Testament when the very 
word never occurs in all their voluminous works, and go 
to its verb form in a language the apostles "did not 
understand." 

After Alexander the Great " The Syrians and Hebrews 
spoke a more corrupt Greek than the native Grecians, and 
impressed on it more or less of the stamp of their vernacu- 
lar language" (p. 32). Hence the dialect thus formed 
" which originated with them" ("this Oriental Greek dia- 
lect") "acquired the name of Hellenistic idiom" (Winer's 
Id., p. 32).* The learned Scaliger, not Drusius, gave it 

•We feel like apologizing to any scholar for introducing such a 
world of evidence on such a subject, now universally acceded to by 
reasonable scholars (see on the Greek Language in the English Cyclo- 
pedia, etc.) ; but the bitterne=s of partisanship on baptism drives men to 
say very absurd things, and we have to waste much space to expose 
them. 



96 BAPTISM. 

this appellation. "It is well known that in the time of 
Christ the Syro-Chaldaic and not the old Hebrew was the 
popular language of the Jews of Palestine (ibid., pp. 32, 
33). Winer then shows that some carry these facts too 
far, stretch them into abuse. 

From these facts we may readily see why the Jews 
used baptism in the sense in which it occurs throughout 
the Old Testament as a sprinkling and pouring on of 
water for religious purposes. Hence the Hebrew and 
Syriac or Aramaean languages will shed far more light on 
it than any other source of information, since as it occurs 
in the New Testament it was wholly by Jews. 

We give these facts though and rules as to the differ- 
ence between radical and metaphorical uses of words to 
have correct principles laid down, while at the same time 
we are not at all dependent on them to establish our prin- 
ciples, as the reader will readily see. 

The twelve apostles and Christ being Jews (as well as 
all their converts for eight or ten years after the com- 
mission was given save one or two individuals) never read 
or spoke in classic Greek. Paul seems to have had some 
knowledge of the classics. But not one of the twelve to 
whom Christ gave the commission ever read classic Greek. 
This fact need not debar us from going to the classics, but 
should teach us how to use them. The Greek used in the 
New Testament, Apocrypha, and Septuagint was a differ- 
ent dialect altogether from that of the classics.* The 
difference need not here be noted only as applied to this 
word. The following facts are very important. 

*And yet Dr. Graves (Graves-Ditzler Debate) says, page 527, "It is 
not true that any standard lexicon distinguishes between classic Greek 
and New Testament Greek in giving definitions of baptidzo." Not one 
standard lexicon exists that fails to note a difference. 



CHANGES IN MEANING. 97 



CLASSIC AND NEW TESTAMENT GREEK. 

While, therefore, classic Greek is essential to the science 
of language, its use could never determine the force bap- 
tidzo has in the New Testament, as the following facts suf- 
ficiently show : 

1. Baptism, the noun baptisma, never appears in any 
classic before Christ. It first appears in the New Testa- 
ment. 

2. In classic (heathen) Greek baptidzo is never applied 
to a religious rite. 

3. Nowhere is it, or any of its names, applied to relig- 
ious washings, cleansings, or " initiations," etc. 

4. Nor does baptidzo or its nouns in classic Greek 
ever apply to washing. 

5. In classic Greek, after it came to imply immersion 
as one of its meanings, it always leaves the object im- 
mersed or submersed to whatever extent it put it into or 
under the element. 

6. In the New Testament and Apocrypha it never has 
such force or use. 

7. In classic Greek it often means to make drunk, 
intoxicate. It never has such meaning in the New Testa- 
ment or Apocrypha or LXX. 

8. In the classics it often means to drown, over- 
whelm,* submerge, leaving its object submerged always 
when it so occurs, but never has such force in the New 
Testament. 

9. As a religious word immerse can not represent bap- 
tidzo. The English of immerse all admit is to "sink in." 

• Some think baptisma means overwhelming sufferings once in New 
Testament correct Greek text ; but all early fathers apply that to shedding 
His blood on the cross, and the water that came out of His side. 

9 



98 BAPTISM. 

How can "sink in" or sink represent New Testament 
baptism ? 

10. As a classic word dip or even baptize in English 
can not represent baptidzo in the classics, since the latter 
means most generally to asperse, pour abuse upon, over- 
whelm, intoxicate, overwhelm with debts, taxes, confusion, 
drown. Dip does not represent any of these. 

11. Every lexicon of any note and every Greek scholar 
of any rank make a distinction between baptidzo in the 
classics and the New Testament that is emphatic and 
pointed, unless we except a few Baptist writers who are 
governed wholly by their prejudices on the question.* 

These facts settle the question, if facts, along with the 
authorities, can settle a question, f 

As long as you hold an object under the water it is 
immersed, it is not baptized. As soon as you take the 
subject out of the element he is baptized, but he is not 

* The fact that I presented these facts in substance in the Louisville 
Debate, 1870, pp. 405-6, and in the Carrollton Debate, pp. 371-2, and 
Drs. "Wilkes and Graves never offered a reply, shows that they felt they 
could not explain away these difficulties. 

tYet Dr. Graves (Debate, p. 527) says, "It is not true that any 
standard lexicon distinguishes between classic Greek and New Testa- 
ment Greek in giving definitions of baptidzo." Let the reader turn to 
our lexicons and see, as we cite them. There is not a standard Greek 
lexicon in existence that fails to distinguish the difference. His own 
Liddell & Scott, quoted correctly, in Prof. Drissler's letter, in the Debate, 
page 495, the only fair report of a lexicon on his side in the entire book, 
notes the distinction, however feebly or imperfectly, as compared with 
Stokius, Schleusner, Passow, Kost, Palm, and Pape. He garbles, sup- 
presses, mistranslates, translates the same entirely different in other 
places, and he has not copied in the Latin the whole New Testament 
definition of a single lexicon quoted. He has not copied the original or 
a translation of a single German lexicon in full, but has left out what 
they called the general meaning of the word. In a word, he has man- 
gled every lexicon in the Greek, Hebrew, or Syriac that he has cited — 
not reporting a single one correctly. 



CHANGES IN MEANING. 99 

immersed. Hence you can see the difference between 
immersion as a mere act and baptism. 

Baptism implies that which neither immersion, sprink- 
ling, pouring, nor dipping, as mere actions, imply. This 
is one of the constant blunders of immersionists — they 
look at and for mere action as if it were only a secular 
word. 

12. As all immersionists agree that baptism is alluded 
to often in both the Old Testament and New by the term 
wash, rendered "bathe" sometimes; that baptidzo repre- 
sents the rachats, and louo, wash, of the Pentateuch (Co- 
nant, Carson, Gale, Ingham, A. Campbell,* and all their 
writers do this in common, and we all concur, and they 
hold also that the wash of Titus iii, 5 ; Ephesians v, 25, 
26 ; Acts xxii, 16, etc. refer to baptism), will they tell us 
when and where the baptidzo of classic Greek ever took 
such a meaning? If wash is derived from immerse, why 
does baptidzo never mean to wash in the classics? They 
know they are dumb as an oyster here. If a man can not 
see from all this that mere classic usage outside of phil- 
ology gives us no light on baptidzo directly as a religious 
word, or word applied to the ordinance used in the New 
Testament, he would not believe though one rose from 
the dead. 

13. The words immerse, sink, dip, often occur in the 
Greek of the Old Testament and New Testament and 
Apocrypha; e. g. enduo, pontidzo, buthidzo, dupto, katapon- 
tidzo, kataduo (Ps. lxix, 2, 15; cxxiv, 4; Ex. xv, 4, 5, 
10; 2 Mac. xii, 4; 1 Tim. vi, 9; Luke v, 7; Matt, xviii, 
6 ; xiv, 13). Had the sacred writers intended immersion 
or dipping it would have been expressed by one or more 

*Gale, Wall, ii, pp. 95-107; A. Campbell, Chris. Baptism, pp. 167, 
173-4, etc.; Ingham, pp. 383-386, etc. 



100 BAPTISM. 

of these words. Not once is either of them used in the 
Bible for baptism, either in speaking of it or alluding to 
it in the various ways in which we find it alluded to in 
the Bible. Such are the indisputable facts in proof. 

Dr. Conant (Baptizein, p. 159) says of baptidzo, "The 
word was a favorite one in the Greek language. When- 
ever the idea of total submergence was to be expressed, 
whether literally or metaphorically, this was the word 
which first presented itself." How utterly incorrect this 
statement is will be realized when it is stated that baptidzo 
never occurs at all in all the works of Homer describing 
sea voyages, storms, battles, loss of ships, etc. ; nor once 
in Hesiod, not once in iEschylus, Sophocles, Herodotus, 
Xenophon, Thucydides ; only once in Aristotle, twice in 
Plato, not once in Theocritus, Bion, Moschus, Tyrtseus; 
and only thirty-three times in all the voluminous Greek 
writers from Homer till the birth of Christ, Conant him- 
self being the judge! In one of these cases it is com- 
pounded with a preposition. 

Let us now call attention to another important canon. 

Blackstone, the great standard in Europe and America 
on law, gives us such a correct and unexceptional direction 
here that we readily adopt it as the essence of all that can 
be said here : 

1. Blackstone xx, vol. 1, §11, 59-61 : "To interpret a 
law we must inquire after the will of the maker, which 
may be collected either from the words, the context, the 
subject-matter, the effects and consequence, or the spirit 
and reason of the law. 

" First. Words are generally to be understood in their 
usual and most known signification, not so much regard- 
ing the propriety of grammar, as their general and pop- 
ular use. . . . 



CHANGES IN MEANING. 101 

"Second. If words happen to be still dubious, we may 
establish their meaning from the context, etc. Of the same 
nature and use is the comparison of a law with laws, that 
are made by the same legislator, that have some affinity 
with the subject, or that expressly relate to the same 
point. . . . " 

Here we are compelled to abandon classics, as not homo- 
geneous with Bible Greek, to find the true force of the 
purely religious words of the Bible. 

Before presenting our proofs of the erroneousness of 
all their assertions as to lexions, and having destroyed all 
their theories and so-called axiomata, we wish to notice 
two more favorite theories of the more humble and less 
learned writers on the immersion side. 

They assume it as a rule that if baptidzo means sprinkle, 
pour, immerse, a person then is not baptized till all these 
definitions be exhausted upon him ! Such an assertion is 
too silly to be seriously noticed. We will simply answer, 
however, thus : If because we discover three meanings these 
three must all be exhausted on the subject ere he is bap- 
tized, how then can our opponents ever baptize any one, 
when A. C. himself gives to baptidzo thirteen or fourteen 
renderings, among them drench, intoxicate, drown; and 
putting all their great lights together, we have at least the 
following meanings : " Soak," " dip," " imbrue," " drench," 
"whelm," "overwhelm," "immerge," "sink," "plunge," 
"intoxicate," "lay," "endure," "administer," "drown," 
"overflow," "inundate," "plunge in a knife," "make 
drunk," "wash," "steep" — twenty meanings. This will 
do ! When we see them exhaust these definitions on their 
candidates, we will all be besieged by the masses rather to 
exhaust only one definition on them. It will be seen at 
the same time how silly also is Mr. A. C.'s first precept 



102 BAPTISM. 

from the decalogue of philology (Christian Bap- 
tism, page 178), * viz. "That the definition of a word and the 
word itself are always convertible terms." Italics his. He 
then urges that you " substitute it (the definition) in the 
place of the original word defined or translated," and " in 
all places the definition makes good sense." Otherwise it 
is incorrect. Let now the reader apply the above defini- 
tions, most of which are Mr. A. Campbell's, to the com- 
mission and places in the New Testament where the orig- 
inal is baptidzo, how will it do? " Go, disciple all nations, 
soaking them," etc. "John the drunkard came, preaching 
the intoxication of repentance." " He commanded them to 
be drowned " (Acts x, 46, 47). 

Mr. A. C. then goes on : " The word sprinkle is always 
followed by the substance sprinkled, and next by the ob- 
ject. We can sprinkle ashes, dust, water, or blood, etc., 
because the particles can be severed with ease, but can 
we sprinkle a man? We may sprinkle something upon 
him, but it is impossible for any man to sprinkle another 
in a river" (Christian Baptism, page 178). "This text 
will hold to the end of the volume" (page 179). "Now, 
as John can not pour the material James, neither can he 
sprinkle him. . . It is highly improper and ungrammatical 
to use such a phrase" (page 179). "Some persons accus- 
tomed to a very loose style see no impropriety in the phrase 
' sprinkle him — pour him/ because of the supplement in 
their minds. . . Now, while the abbreviation may be tol- 
erated, so far as time is concerned, it is intolerable in physical 
and grammatical propriety, because it is physically impos- 
sible to scatter a man into particles like dust, or to pour 
him out like water," etc. (page 179, 180). 

* We do not regard A. Campbell as a " lesser light" as an intellectual 
man. He was a man of wonderful resources and personal influence — a 
great man truly, but crude and defective in verbal criticism. 



CHANGES IN MEANING. 103 

If Mr. C, Dr. Graves, etc. were as loosely constructed 
as this so-called first precept in the decalogue of philol- 
ogy, certainly they could be scattered as dust and absorbed 
as water. They ought to have known — 

1. That the Hebrew word mostly used for sprinkle, 
nazah (Arabic, nazach), not only took a direct accusative 
of the person, but meant to moisten, to make wet, irrigate ; 
which words take direct accusatives constantly. And this 
is the Hebrew word they cite. 

2. They should have known that they contend that 
nazah, to sprinkle, occurs in Isaiah lii, 15, where they in- 
sist on rendering as the LXX do — " astonish," which ruins 
his decalogue. No preposition can come between here. 

3. He ought to have known that the two Latin words 
generally used for sprinkle, perfundo and spargo, take a 
direct accusative of the person; i. e. Ovid's Met. iii, 190- 
195, "And sprinkled his vile face, and sprinkling his hair," 
etc. * That perfundo, to sprinkle, also meant to wet, be- 
dew, etc., utterly destroying his rule. 

4. That conspergo, to sprinkle, meant " to stain," to 
"soil," etc., taking accusatives. 

5. That the following quotations, which could be multi- 
plied a thousand-fold, show the utter ignorance or intellect- 
ual obtusity of these men : " The demons . . . caused those 
entering their temples to sprinkle themselves."! " Sprinkle 
one with songs," "sprinkle one with praise." % The 
Greek, Latin, and Syriac of Psalm li, 9, reads "Sprinkle 
me with hyssop;" § 2 Maccabees i, 21, "Sprinkle the wood 
with water, etc." || "He sprinkled me with a cloud of 

* Vultumque ; perfudit ; sparqensque comas. 

t Justin Martyr : Vavri&tv Eavrovg. 

X 'Paivhv riva vfivu — 'paiveiv iv/x>yiac Tiva. Pindar viii, p. 81, etc. 

\ Rusi, pavrelc fie — asperges me. 

|| ''Emppavai ry vdari ra te l-vka, etc. 



104 BAPTISM. 

dust" (Ovid's Met. ix, 35).* "Consult now Hebrews ix, 
19, 21; xi, 28;. xii, 24; x, 22; Latin of Isaiah lii, 15, as 
well as Syriac, German, etc. In the face of the fact that 
Webster, Worcester, all authors of most learning and taste 
in all languages, use as constantly that form as any form 
on earth whenever a subject is treated of that brings it up, 
it is absolutely amazing that any man however obstupi- 
fied by prejudice or besotted with party spirit could make 
such blunders as the above, followed also by so many.f 

* Sparget me, etc. So perfudit caput; Castell: Sprinkled the head. 

t After the above was written, Dr. J. K. Graves, in the Carrollton 
debate, presses this silly rule with an earnestness that is astonishing, 
which shows how desperate is their cause. 



GREEK LEXICONS — FIRST ON BAPTO. 105 



CHAPTER X. 
Greek Lexicons — First on Bapto. 

We now quote the lexicons. For forty years the 
immersion pulpits have rung with the testimony of the 
lexicons. As a sample of the many bold and daring 
assertions we quote a few specimens from Mr. A. Camp- 
bell. Remember that many of these authors are denning 
classic Greek ; that their theories of immersion were built 
on the false assumptions we have refuted, and which 
Conant, Carson, Ingham, and others utterly refute; that 
Stokius, Schleusner, Suicer, etc. belong to that class ; that 
all these lexicons, save Passow (Greek), Rost, Palm, 
Pape, were more or less translated from and based upon 
those lexicons made in the dawn of the revival of Greek 
literature, when immersion was the enforced law of the 
land, the general practice where they were made ; affusion 
being allowed only in cases of parties too weak or ill to 
allow of " dipping." Though pedobaptists, they are all 
based on immersion sources and under its influence. We 
give the definitions of those recognized as the great mas- 
ters of lexicography. 

That the lexicons simply aim to present the current, 
not the primary, meaning of bapto is evident, for, first, 
the older ones, whom the rest follow — copy — did not dis- 
cuss primaries at that time; second, the first citation 
Stephanus gives is Aratus, seven centuries later than its 
occurrence in Greek, four centuries later than we meet 



106 BAPTISM. 

with it in other writers than Homer. If it be contended 
that such lexicographers were discussing primaries thus, it 
destroys their merit utterly and disqualifies them utterly 
as witnesses. See fully on this under baptidzo hereafter. 

We present a few authorities on bapto, the root of 
baptidzo, not giving all they say, but a few; and we give 
the first meanings they attach, as our opponents contend 
these are the primary meanings. 

A. Campbell says (Christian Baptism), "We have, 
then, the unanimous testimony of all the distinguished 
lexicographers known in Europe or America that the 
proper and every-where current signification of baptizo 
.... is to dip, plunge, or immerse, and that any other 
meaning is tropical, rhetorical, or fanciful" (§§ 126, 127, 
147). 

"They all (lexicons) without one single excep- 
tion, give, dip, immerse, sink, or plunge, synonymously 
expressive of the true, proper, and primary signification 
of baptizo; NOT one of them giving sprinkle or pour as a 
meaning of it, or any of its family" " It never has been 
(Debate, p. 109) translated by either sprinkle or pour by 
any lexicographer for eighteen hundred years" (Debate, 
p. 139). " Can not show one (Greek dictionary) that gives 
wash as its first meaning" (Debate, p. 118). 

1. Stokius: Banno, bapto, tingo, moisten, stain. 

2. Oyrilli Philexeni Glossaria: Bapto, to stain, moisten, 
imbue, wet.* 

3. Faciolatus and Forcellini give bapto as the synonym 
of tingo, to moisten, wet. 

4. Andrews's Latin Lexicon : Baptce, painters. 

5. Anthonys Classical Dictionary : " Baptse. The priests 
of Cotytto. The name is derived from pd-rw, to tinge or 

* Bd7rrw, inficio, tinguo, fuco, imbuo, tingo. 



GREEK LEXICONS — FIRST ON BAPTO. 107 

dye, from their painting their cheeks and staining the 
parts around the eyes like women." 

6. Kiihner's Greek Grammar, § 143, p. 173: Banno, 
bapto, to tinge. 

7. Dalzel, Grseci Majorum: Bdnrw (tingo), tinge. 

8. Ursinus's Greek Lexicon : To stain, to dye, to wash or 
cleanse (abluo), to sprinkle (aspergo). 

9. Groves's Greek Lexicon : To dip, plunge, immerse, 
wash, wet, moisten, sprinkle, steep, imbue, dye, stain, color. 

10. Gazes: Bapto* to cast or thrust down. To stain, 
to dye, and to sink. To pour any thing into or on any 
thing. ... To shed forth, to wash, to wash the hands, etc. 

11. Kouma, almost same as G., has brecho, shed forth, 
or sprinkle, wash, etc. 

12. Stephanus, favoring immersion, gives " paint" 
(fuco), "stain," "moisten," "imbue" as by far the most 
prevalent meaning, and "pour upon."f 

Although we have only quoted a few lexicons, several 
of the above not only being lexicographers but gramma- 
rians, annotators on classic Greek, etc., such as Kiihner, 
yet his learning and accuracy are far, very far, above the 
great body of lexicographers, and he is aiming at the pri- 
mary force, they at popular classic use, to aid students to 
translate. We give more, however, on bapto by far than 
A. Campbell and others. As immersionists appeal from 
lexicons in disgust, we give more space to "authorities" 
appealed to as more valuable. 

* Gazes, a native Greek lexicographer of immense research and 
learning, defines (idirru thus: 1. BaXku rt /neoa (eif tt)v /3a<pvv) elg ri. 2. 
KpufiaTi^u, /3a<pu, ml (3v6i£u } x^> vu TL ^ aa £ *C n . . . 4. Bpe^w, loiu, 
n'kvvu. 5. AvtAgj, ytjii^a. 

t " Superfusa" this being by the great editor, Yalpey. Buddaeus, 
the older lexicographer, and ancient glosses do the same — give stain, 
paint, moisten, imbue, as the prevailing use of bapto. 



108 BAPTISM. 

Carson insists that " as to totality of immersion, the one 
(bapto) is perfectly the equivalent to the other," baptidzo 
(p. 23). A. Campbell, Gale, etc. fully adhere to the same. 

Evidently a close inspection shows this to be utterly 
untrue ; that bapto is far feebler than baptidzo, the former 
never being applied in the classics to such bapting or bap- 
tizing forces and elements as the waves of the sea, over- 
flowing tides, great calamities, burdening debts, misfor- 
tunes, etc., or torrents of abusive epithets. But that is 
not our fight; if they admit what A. Campbell, Carson, 
Gale, Ingham, Eipley, Cox, Mell, etc. do, it is not our 
loss. Yet the truth requires this remark. But since all 
agree that an appeal to original authors is alone a settle- 
ment of the question, to them at once we will appeal. 

Dr. A. Carson, Baptist, says of lexicons, "They are 
not an ultimate authority, . . The meaning of a word must 
ultimately be determined by an actual inspection of the pas- 
sages in which it occurs" (p. 56). "The just and most 
obvious method of ascertaining the meaning of a word 
is to examine its origin and use in the language" (p. 23). 
Again, "Use is the sole arbiter of language" (p. 
46). Capitals his. 

President J. M. Pendleton, D.D., New York: "Lex- 
icons indeed do not constitute the ultimate authority " 
("Why I am a Baptist," p. 86). He repeats it (p. 96) and 
adds, "Lexicographers are necessarily dependent on the 
sense in which words are used, to ascertain their meaning. 
But it is not impossible for them to mistake the sense. If 
they do, there is an appeal from their definitions to the 
usus loquendi, which is the ultimate authority (p. 96). 

A. Campbell's Christian Baptism, p. 122: "The mean- 
ing of a word is ascertained by the usage of those writers 
and speakers whose knowledge and acquirements have 



GREEK LEXICONS — FIRST ON BAPTO. 109 

made them masters of their own language. . . . We, in- 
deed, try the dictionaries themselves by the classics, the ex- 
tant authors of the language." See 127, 130-133, also. 
To the same effect speaks Ingham (p. 43), and then quotes 
Carson as above at length. Conant writes his whole work 
on this assumption, appealing at once from the lexicons. 
So does Professor Ripley and all the rest. We fully ac- 
knowledge the justness of their position, though not their 
inconsistency in such wholesale repudiation of lexical 
authority. Yet we are bound to admit the principles they 
act upon, that lexicons are not "ultimate authority. " 

But in appealing to the " ultimate authority," and mak- 
ing an " inspection of the passages in which it occurs," 
knowing that words in all languages are always changing, 
as A. Campbell and others tell us, and as demonstrated 
in these pages so fully, we will not pursue the unscientific 
and strange method of Carson, M. Stuart, Beecher (Dr. 
Edward), Gale, and others of confounding and confus- 
ing bapto, the root, with baptidzo. 



110 BAPTISM. 



CHAPTER XL 

Bapto in Greek Writers. 

Drs. Gale, Carson, A. Campbell, M. Stuart, E. Beecher, 
etc. confound bapto and baptidzo in a heterogeneous mass. 
They first cite a sentence with bapto in it, then a few with 
baptidzo in them, then a few with bapto, until only Greek 
scholars can tell the difference in the words. Their mean- 
ings are utterly confounded. Along with these, Conant, 
Dale, Ripley, Vossius, Suicer, and all the rest have paid 
no attention to, first, the dates* of authors, so as to trace 
primary uses, trace developed meanings, and arrive at 
some conclusion that would be satisfactory, or at least give 
promise of such a result some day; second, the relative 
merits of writers in Greek ; third, periods of the Greek 
language in which marked changes occur, as from Plato 
to Polybius. In a word, they seem never to have thought 
of the fundamental principle in all philology, that system, 
order, development of language, chronological order must 
be observed. As a sample of the reckless manner of 
treating this subject, Dr. Dale, in his late works on bap- 
tism, when treating on bapto, its primary meaning, to be 
determined by "inspection of the passages" in which it 
occurs, entirely ignores every rule or principle by which 
a primary could be discovered. He cites his first passage to 

* Conant and others often give the age in which an author was born 
or wrote, but have no chronological order at all. That is the point of 
value. 



BAPTO IN GREEK WRITERS. Ill 

find a primary from an author who flourished some twelve 
hundred years later than Homer ! He inspects a passage 
nearly a hundred years later than iEschylus. And he uses 
the word primary in the sense we do and in that of all 
scholars on the subject of primaries. Such has been the 
unscientific method on this subject. Nor does he ever 
hint that between even Plato and his Iron-age author 
there had been a great breakdown in the language — a 
fact any lexicographer of note would have told him of in 
his introduction. Is it a wonder that no definite philolog- 
ical facts could be settled upon, but merely some surface 
facts discovered but not explained. We will see more of 
this under baptidzo. 

To trace the primary meaning, then, of bapto, the uni- 
versally admitted root of baptidzo, we will give all the 
earliest occurrences of the word that have been found, 
unless by accident some have escaped our observation, 
which would not materially change the question, though 
if it did it would likely be in our favor, since the other 
side has produced all they could, and we select mainly 
from them. 

We will begin by giving a summary of Drs. M. Stuart 
and Dale, when producing all the texts they could on bapto, 
giving the ages in which they lived, and without any scien- 
tific order. And Dale at least wants to prove immerse as 
the primary of baptidzo, and dip as that of bapto. Dale 
begins with iElian, A. D. third century. 



I. DR. DALE'S SUMMARY ON BAPTO. 

He renders bapto dip, fourteen times; dye, fourteen 
times; imbue, seven times; temper, two times; smear, one 



112 BAPTISM. 

time; stain, one time; wash, four times; moisten, two 
times; wet, one time — forty-seven. 

Of these forty-seven cases, as rendered by him, we have 

1. Thirty-three against fourteen for dip. 

2. Some of these cases are partial dips, a very slight 
and not a total penetration into the element by the object 
said to be bapted. 

3. In no case was there an immersion, i. e. sinking. • 

4. All the oldest authorities fail to furnish a case of 
dip or plunge, when Dale was seeking for proof of dip as 
the primary meaning. We will give his renderings of the 
earliest occurrences of the word. In Homer, .stain, temper. 
In iEschylus, temper. In Herodotus, wash. In Aristoph- 
anes, smear, wash, dye, dip. In Sophocles, stain, temper. 
In Euripides, stain. In Aristotle, moisten. In Plato, dye. 
This is a sample, though we may not have counted as ac- 
curately as in the other counts, where we took greater pains 
still, more being demanded. 

5. For five hundred years after bapto appears no case 
of a literal dip occurs, but stain, where it is by affusion, 
temper, wash. 

6. In the next two hundred years dip appears as a 
meaning only twice against a large majority of cases 
pointing to affusion, aspersion, as the modes by which the 
objects were stained, moistened, dyed, colored, washed, 
smeared, etc. 

ii. m. stuart's summary on bapto. 

So strongly does Stuart favor the immersionists in their 
over-estimation that Dr. J. R. Graves, 1856, published his 
book on baptism, taunting the other side that they would 
not publish it. 



BAPTO IN GREEK WRITERS. 113 

1. Of fifty-six occurrences in classic and non-Biblical 
usage he renders it by dip, dye, color, smear (Dr. Carson 
and other Baptists render it " smear"), thrust, bathe, tinct- 
ure, tinge, plunge, wash — ten renderings. 

2. In these fifty-six cases he has seven full dips, nine 
where it was partial, not total — sixteen for dip. This 
gives forty-nine against seven total dips, or forty against 
sixteen for dip, partial and total. It is forty-nine against 
seven plunge — they doubtful, very. There is no immerse. 
He gives thirty-three against the sum-total for dip and 
plunge. 

3. If, as our opponents assume at least that current 
usage determines the primary meaning, then dip is not the 
primary meaning of bapto, and immerse does not even 
enter court with a plea. H. Stephanus, though educated 
under all the prejudices of an education among immer- 
sionists, shows in his great Thesaurus that moisten, stain, 
paint (fueo), prevail by great odds over dip as a meaning. 

BAPTO FROM ONE THOUSAND TO FIVE HUNDRED YEARS 
BEFORE CHRIST. 

Two writers occur in this period who use bapto each 
twice. 

Homer, before Christ one thousand years, by popular 
date, round number. 

1. Batrach v, 218: Of a frog pierced and slain in 
battle he says, "He fell without even looking upward, 
and the lake (ekapteto) was tinged with blood."* Here the 
effusion of the blood from the delicate veins of a pierced 
frog is what bapted the lake. Small were the drops, deli- 
cate indeed was the stream from such a source. Yet the 

* 'ECoTTTfro & alfiari lifivif. 
1(1 



114 BAPTISM. 

lake is bapted with the affusion of the few drops of blood 
that spun out from its veins. Here, too, we have, first, a 
clear case of very delicate effusion, aspersion, from bapto. 
Second, it shows how stain, color, tinge, dye, came as a 
meaning of bapto, 

2. Odyssey i, 302 : " As when a smith tempers (baptei) 
a hatchet or huge pole-ax with cold water," or "in cold 
water." Here bapto may imply such a partial dip as we 
often witness in the shops where smiths temper "a huge 
pole-ax" or a hatchet. The edge is slightly dipped. But 
from the context this does not seem to have been the allu- 
sion. It was more likely the well-known process of put- 
ting some cold water on the anvil, placing the ax or hatchet 
on it, and striking a blow with the hammer, which makes 
an explosion or report louder than an ordinary gun. This 
is done constantly in tempering axes and hatchets. 

1. We have in Homer no immerse for bapto. 

2. We may barely have a case of partial dip, but it is 
extremely doubtful. 

3. More likely in both cases it is aspersion. 

4. Any way, one of them is a clear case of aspersion in 
this the first known Greek author. 



^SCHYLUS ON BAPTO, BORN FIVE HUNDRED AND TWEN- 
TY-NINE YEARS BEFORE CHRIST. 

1. "For the wife has deprived each husband of life 
staining (bapsasa) the sword by slaughter."* Here is a 
case easily determined. It does not say the sword was 
plunged into some penetrable matter — mersed or dipped. 
The sword is stained by slaughter — bapted by the blood of 
slain men in whatever way cut down. 
* Premeth, v, 861. 



BAPTO IN GKEEK WRITERS. 115 

2. The second case is thus given : " This garment, stained 
(ebaphaen) by the blood of iEgisthus, is a witness to me." 

Here the blood spurts out from the wound and be- 
sprinkles or affuses the garment, staining it, and witnesses 
of the violent death of the victim. 

1. Here again, in the next writer we have after Homer 
who uses oapto, bapto is used for a clear case of affusion. 

2. We see again the mode of the staining, the coloring, 
the tinging, dyeing of bapto. 

3. Notice well that in neither of the cases where bapto 
is used for staining is it a dip. The old process has always 
been to take the later cases of bapto after it took on the 
later meanings, and where the art of dyeing by dipping 
was discovered, or else at least where it from stain, color, 
came to apply readily to dyeing, then to dyeing by any 
mode; hence by dipping, then to dip in any object, and 
securing this meaning in late, Iron-age authors especially, 
they assume it as the primary meaning and explain all else 
from that ! Even Dale adopts this process. 

We have now traced bapto through five hundred years. 
It occurs four times. It is doubtful as to mode in one 
case. Three are cases of effusion and affusion. That is, 
the blood effused from wounds and affused or stained the 
objects besprinkled or affused. Hence its primary mean- 
ing is readily determined by all the established laws of 
language — sprinkle. 

BAPTO FROM FIVE HUNDRED TO FOUR HUNDRED AND 
TWENTY-NINE YEARS BEFORE CHRIST. 

1. Sophocles, born B.C. 495: "Thou hast well stained 
(ebapsas) thy sword (pros) by means of [or with respect to] 
the army of the Greeks." * This is a case like the above. 

• Ajax, v, 95. 



116 BAPTISM. 

2. Herodotus, born B.C. 484, in Euterpe : (1) " Going to 
the river he washed (ebapse) himself." f Here he washed 
himself, not into, but at the river. He simply went (epi) 
to the river and washed. The word himself is merely 
added by us. Pharaoh's daughter (Ex. ii, 5) " washed her- 
self (epi) at the river." We see this was the custom in 
Egypt. Herodotus is here telling of an Egyptian. Judith 
(xii, 7) " washed herself — baptized — (epi) at the fountain." 

(2) "Colored garments" (bebammena, i. e. bapto). This 
is the first case of the application of bapto to garments 
colored or dyed in the ordinary sense, the others being as 
seen stained, sprinkled with blood, or the blood gushed 
out upon them. In what way the garments were colored 
does not appear. Let us suppose it was by dipping in 
dye. Then we have these facts. Six hundred years before 
this bapto applied to sprinklings of blood, that of course 
stained. Forty years earlier than Herodotus it is applied 
to affusions of blood, staining the object on which it falls. 
Here we see dye comes from stain, stain from effusions, 
from sprinkle. From applications of water come wash, 
a very rare meaning of bapto. 

3. Euripides, born B.C. 480. Here is the first case of 
bapto clearly indicating a dip, a partial dip only, when a 
pitcher is dipped sufficiently into water to get water and 
immediately withdrawn. Hence, " Dip a vessel and bring 
sea-water." " Dip up with pitchers." He uses it for a 
more violent dip still. His sounding scimeter "he plunged 
(ebapse) into the flesh." Here in all cases notice the ob- 
ject dipped and the object " plunged " is immediately with- 
drawn, our word "plunge" not being the exact equivalent 
of bapto even in these cases. In later days Lycophron 
says, " Plunged his sword into the viper's bowels." Dion- 

t Bdf em tov nora/iov eddipe. 



BAPTO IN GREEK WRITERS. 117 

ysius of Halicarnassus, "Plunge (bapsas) his spear between 
the other's ribs." He "at the same instant plunged his 
into his belly." In these, and in all that the strongest 
immersionists can produce, there is no total immersion. 
Where the sword, the spear, the lance is bapted only a 
part, and in many instances only a small part, enters the 
object. It is in cases where the sword, the spear is at 
once withdrawn. 

4. Aristophanes, born about B.C. 450. He uses bapto 
more frequently. 

(1) Speaking of Magnes, an old comic writer of Ath- 
ens, he says, " Smearing himself (baptommos) with frog- 
colored paints" (batracheiois). 

(a) Here bapto applies where there is no dip, no plunge. 
(6) The coloring matter is applied to the object bapted. 
Putting coloring matter on his face bapted it. 

(2) " Do not adorn yourself with garments of varie- 
gated appearance, colored (baptori) at great cost." Here 
the colors seemed to be the effect of needle-work, as often 
now occurred, taking different colors and working them 
into garments, thus bapting them. Bapto came thus to 
apply to nature's colors, to birds of color, precious stones 
of beautiful colors, etc. Hence Aristophanes — 

(3) Ornis baptos, " a colored bird." 

(a) Dipping, plunging is out of the question here. 

(b) The variegated plumage was bapted thus as it grew. 
Thus bapto applies where no mode is specially involved, 
the coloring matter effecting the bapted condition by the 
most delicate touches. To put it nicely, here bapto by 
streams or parts of drops so small that only a microscope 
could discover them to our eyes effected a bapted condi- 
tion. The birds and stones were bapted by these delicate 
affusions and infusions. Hence Greeks, Hebrews, and 



118 BAPTISM. 

Arabians used these phrases: "Sprinkled with colors," 
" Sprinkled with gray." Again, Aristophanes — 

(4) A bully speaking says, " Lest I stain you (bapso) 
with a Sardinian hue (6omma)."* Here bapto occurs 
twice in its different forms. 

(a) There is no dip, no plunge. 

(b) The meaning, as all lexicons agree, is, that the 
bully would strike the other party on the mouth with his 
fist, give him a bloody mouth or nose. The blood issuing 
out would stain his face. 

(c) Clearly enough the bapto here bapted the object by 
affusion. 

(5) The next case is, " First wash (baptos) the wool in 
warm water." While the wool would in this case un- 
doubtedly be dipped in the water to become saturated 
with the water, yet the word bapto applies to the process 
of washing the wool, which was effected by rubbing it in 
the hands or otherwise while saturated with water. Mere 
dipping into the warm water would not wash the wool. 

(6) In his day already bapto was strengthened by a 
preposition to make a clear case of dip, en being employed 
for that purpose. 

In this noted author, then, six times he uses bapto. In 
not a single case did he use it for dip, plunge, immerse. 
To make it mean dip he strengthens it by en, i. e. embapto, 
as Luke, the nearest to a classic writer of all New Testa- 
ment writers. 

6. Hippocrates, born B.C. 430. This noted Greek, 
quoted by Carson (Baptist) says of a dyeing substance, 
"When it drops (epitaxa) upon the garments they are 
stained (baptetai), dyed. 

Notice now — 

* Acharn, act 1, scene 1. 



BAPTO IN GREEK WRITERS. 119 

1. We have had no case where a complete envelopment 
even for a moment has been effected by bapto from Ho- 
mer to Hippocrates. 

2. Herodotus used bapto for dyed or "colored gar- 
ments," but how colored we did not see. 

3. Hippocrates gives us the mode, the process by which 
the garments he names were bapted. The dyeing matter 
" drops upon the garments." 

In this way, by this mode, " they are dyed " (baptetai). 
Is there controversy over the mode of this bapting? Yet 
iinmersionists tell us dyeing, coloring, is always by dip- 
ping. Justice requires that we say Dr. Carson is an ex- 
ception, and admits it is effected by sprinkling, but thinks 
bapto primarily meant dip, then dye by dipping, then dye 
by any mode. But he, as all the rest, never took the 
matter up chronologically, but selected nearly all his 
proof-texts as Campbell, Dale, Gale, etc. do from later 
and Iron-age Greek, then explains the early use from the 
later ! No scholar will now call that science or philology 
or good sense. 

We have now gone over the period from Homer to 
Plato, who comes next. In all these periods of six hun- 
dred years among the most illustrious writers Greece 
ever produced, we find the following exhibit: 

1. Not once does bapto mean immerse, i. e. sink. 

2. Not once does it totally dip the whole object. 

3. Only three times do we find it for a partial dip. 

4. In no instance does it apply to, or describe the act per- 
formed by Baptists when they baptize. 

5. It frequently applies to the mode of those who baptize 
by affusion, and to the exact mode, effusion, aspersion, though 
not any single, exclusive mode, and the application in 
any decent mode is what we require in baptism. 



120 BAPTISM. 

6. The prevailing action or mode involved in bapto as 
yet is aspersion, effusion, affusion. 

7. The primary force of the word is aspersion. 

BAPTO FROM PLATO TO ARISTOTLE, ETC. 

1. Plato, born B.C. 429, uses bapto repeatedly, and uses 
it for dye and dip, and as we promptly grant this we need 
not quote passages. 

2. Alcibiades, born B.C. 400, alluding to the offensive 
and opprobrious epithets applied to him by a comedian in 
the play called Baptae, says, u You aspersed (baptes) me 
[with the abusive epithets] in your play." 

(1) Here bapto is used by both parties — the one call- 
ing his play Baptae, in a metaphorical sense, applying 
bapto to speech. 

(2) All metaphorical use is based on a prior literal use 
of words, as no one will question. 

(3) In Greek, as we see elsewhere, and elaborately, 
and in Arabic, in Latin, and in English, abuse is repre- 
sented by words meaning to sprinkle and to pour con- 
stantly. " Foul aspersion," " base aspersion," is a com- 
mon English phrase. "Pour abuse upon" is another. 
We never say that we " dip a man in abuse," " plunge 
him into abuse." 

(4) Here is, therefore, a clear use of bapto by both 
parties, and by Greek comedians generally, that show 
sprinkle to be the primary meaning of bapto. And the 
writer uses the words " streams more bitter," as the means 
with which he, in a volley of words, would baptize him, 
not merely bapt him. 

3. The great Aristotle, born B.C. 384, comes next in 
chronological order as using the word. He uses the word 



BAPTO IN GREEK WRITERS. 121 

where there is a partial dip, and where also objects are col- 
ored, and where dyeing is by dipping. Then also thus, 
speaking of a dyeing substance : "Being pressed, it moist- 
ens (baptei) and dyes (anthidei) the hand." 

(1) There is no dip, plunge, immerse here. 

(2) Like nearly all the cases cited, it is a literal use of 
bapto i not a metaphorical one. 

(3) The fluid came out upon the hand — effusion, was 
the literal mode by which the object was moistened, 

(4) It is such a delicate effusion that it merely moist- 
ens the hand. 

(5) The effect of its being coloring matter that was 
pressed was to dye or stain the hand ; and bapto does not 
express that, but anthidzo does, which primarily applies to 
sprinklings. See the word and the lexicons on it in the 
next chapter. Anthidzo is defined " to sprinkle," " stain," 
"color," "strew with flowers," "paint." 

4. Diodorus Siculus, B.C. 69-30: "Coats (baptais) col- 
ored and flowered with various colors." "Native warmth 
has tinged (ebapsen) the above varieties of the growth of 
things [i. e. birds, precious stones, etc.] before mentioned."* 

Omitting dates now, the writers of this period speak 
on this wise. Plutarch, vi, p. 680 : " Then perceiving that 
his beard was colored (baptomenon) and his head." iElian : 
"The Indians dyed (baptontai) their beards." Marcus 
Antonius speaks of the soul tinged (baptetai) by the 
thoughts. " Tinge (bapto) it, then, by accustoming your- 
self to such thoughts." 

Here still bapto continues to be used where, 

1. There is no dip, plunge, and immerse is never a 
meaning of the word. 

2. It is applied where the coloring matter is applied to 

*Tom. iii, 315; xi, 149. 
11 



122 BAPTISM. 

the hair, to the beard, and in many cases to the cheeks, 
the eyes, as in the case of the priests of Cotytto, given 
elsewhere. 

3. In only two cases yet have we found it applied to 
simple water, and no immersion was found ; and we have 
come down to the period after Christ. 

BAPTO IN DANIEL. 

In the Greek version by Theodotian, second century 
after Christ, bapto occurs several times, as follows : 

1. Daniel iv, 33 : "And his body was wet (ebaptae) with 
the dew (apo) from heaven." 

2. Daniel v, 21 : "And his body was wet (ebaptae) with 
the dew (apo) from heaven. Here, 

(1) Nebuchadnezzar's body was bapted with the falling 
dew — a clear case of gentle aifusion. 

(2) It is a case where water pure is the element, not 
blood or coloring matter, paint, etc., as so often we found. 

(3) To parade, as Gale, Carson, and others do the co- 
pious dews of that country, is simply ridiculous. What 
do we care for the copious fall of dew? Was his body 
dipped into it, covered up by the process, or did the " co- 
pious dew" fall upon him "from heaven"? 

(4) Jerome and other ancient writers translate two of 
these passages by " sprinkled " with the dew of heaven." * 
(Dan. iv, 20). 

(5) The Arabic translates it sprinkled. The Latin 
version in Walton on Daniel v, 21, per'fusam, " sprinkled 
with the dew of heaven." 

* Conspergatur and infunderis, sprinkled, besprinkled. Chaldee, chap, 
iv. 21, 22®T. N *5? %1> -™', Vulgate, Et rore cadi conspergatur, v. 22, 
Chal. 1W®\ from the dew; V????, infunderis. 



BAPTO IN GREEK WRITERS. 123 

(6) The Latin version in Origen's works renders Dan- 
iel iv, 22 (bapto* in Greek), by "his body shall be sprin- 
kled with the dew of heaven" (chap. iv). 



BAPTO IN NEW TESTAMENT AND SEPTUAGINT. 

Bapto occurs three times in the New Testament, embapto 
twice. Of these three cases 

1. Two are very partial, very slight dips for the pur- 
pose of moistening the object. It is simply one case re- 
ported by the writers Matthew (xxvi, 23), John (xiii, 26), 
Mark (xiv, 20) — " He that dippeth his hand with me in the 
dish;" "I shall give a sop [morsel] when I have dipped 
it;" "And when he had dipped the sop" — morsel.f As 
Luke uses embapto in the dip of the tip of the finger in 
the case of Lazarus, it being compounded with a strength- 
ening word en, it does not come in for discussion, though 
we do not object to it on any other ground, of course. 

These may all be held, then, as just one case in the New 
Testament where bapto is used. 

l..In this case no immersion occurs. 

2. No plunge occurs. 

3. The dip was only a touching of the morsel of food 
to the element to moisten it for eating. 

The other case is Revelation xix, 13, "And he was 
clothed with a vesture [garment] (bebammenon) sprinkled 
with blood." In our version the immersionist translators 

* Greek to acbud aov (3a<frfoeTat, et de rore coeli corpus tuum aspergetur. 

tin Exodus xii, 22; Leviticus xiv, 16, 51; iv, 17; ix, 9, etc., bapto 
occurs in the Greek version made third century before Christ. 1. In 
no case was it immersion. 2. In most cases the object was merely 
touched to or by the bapting fluid. 3. In no case was there envelop- 
ment. We will examine the cases under the Hebrew tabhal, which see. 



124 BAPTISM. 

of James render it " dipped in blood." How untrue and 
absurd ! 

1. The Syriac renders this case by "sprinkle." That 
part of the Peshito was made later than the rest, yet by 
the close of the second century or dawn of the third. 

2. The old Itala, made undoubtedly by the close of the 
apostolic age, renders bapto here by " sprinkle" — aspersa. 

3. The Coptic, third century, translates it "sprinkle." 

4. The Basmuric, third century, renders it "sprinkle." 

5. The Sahidic, second century, renders it "sprinkle." 

6. The iEthiopic, fourth century, renders it " sprinkle." 

7. The Lutheran, sixteenth century, renders it " sprin- 
kle" (besprengt). 

8. The Lusitanian has it " sprinkle" (salpacado). 

9. Bapto is translated sprinkle by the learned Greek, 
Irenseus, born by common chronology four years before 
John the Apostle's death ; some put it later. Irenseus 
was bishop of Lyons and a great defender of the purity 
of the church. He cites Revelation xix, 13, where in the 
Greek it is bapto — bebammenon — and translates it, "And 
he was clothed with a vesture sprinkled with blood."* 

10. Origen, the most learned father and commentator 
the world produced in sixteen hundred years, born some 
eighty-six years after John's death, translates bapto, in 
the same passage, " sprinkled! with blood." 

11. Hippolytus, the learned Greek archbishop, A.D. 
220, copies the common reading of Revelation xix, 13, 
bapto, thus : "And he was clothed with a vesture [bebam- 
menon — bapted, in our version dipped~\ in blood," and 
adds "See, then, brethren, how the vesture, sprinkled 
with blood, denoted," etc.| 

* Against Heresies, b. iv, chap. 20 ; c. xi. 
t 'EppavTiG/j.evov, errantismenon. 
t Against Noetus, chap. xv. 



BAPTO IN GREEK WRITERS. 125 

12. The oldest and best copy of the Bible in the world, 
Tischendorff's manuscript, made about A. D. 325, trans- 
lates it besprinkled* thus : "And he was clothed with a 
vesture besprinkled with blood. "f 

In the light of these records we see the following facts 
made patent : 

1. That many lexicons, being deeply steeped in immer- 
sion prejudices, selected their texts on bapto from the few 
cases, mostly in Dark-age Greek, where it also meant dip, 
stain, dye, and gave not one of those cases which we have 
presented above. 

2. The utter unreliability of the parties who tell us 
that bapto always means to dip, immerse, etc. 

3. That from the earliest use of the word it applied to 
sprinklings, even the most partial and delicate, and con- 
tinued to be so applied in later Greek. 

4. That it constantly applied to effusions, to cases 
"merely touched in part or in whole," by the fluid. 

5. That sprinkle was the primary import of the word. 

6. That dip is a late and a derived meaning. 

* Uepipepafievov, perireramenon, besprinkled. 

t To those who seek to evade the force of this by saying as Gale did, 
when it was only known that Origen thus rendered it till we brought 
out the rest, that Origen had a copy (codex) with sprinkle in it, which 
A. Campbell indorsed in the Rice debate, and Tischendorff's being 
found with besprinkled in it, and that Origen merely copied that, we 
reply: 1. Tischendorff's MS. dates about one hundred and ten years 
later than Origen — how could Origen copy him? 2. Irenseus so trans- 
lated it long before Origen did. 3. Origen's was not copied from Tisch- 
endorff's copy, for it has the word different — one is errantismenon, the 
other perireramenon ; very different in form — one raino, other rantidzo ; 
and a compounded word. 4. Hippolytus copies bapto, then translates it. 



126 BAPTISM. 



CHAPTER XII. 

Bapto — Primary Meaning Continued. 

It is remarkable that the root of baptidzo should mean, 
in addition to sprinkle, moisten, imbue, wash; also to 
stain, color, dye. It seems more so when we learn that 
the leading word in use among Latin Christians of the 
earliest ages — Tertullian, Cyprian, etc. — for baptize, when 
not using by transfer the word itself, was " tingo," which 
primarily means to moisten, make wet, where it is by 
tears, by dew, drops of liquid, etc., yet comes to mean 
to stain, color, dye, dip. Tabhal (in Hebrew, baptize) 
means to stain, but rarely ; while the Syriac and Arabic 
teewz— baptize — means to stain, to dye, or color, and applies 
to colored birds, animals, etc. It will be seen that all 
these words, save tingo, mean primarily to sprinkle, to 
shed or pour forth, applied to liquids; they mean also to 
moisten, make wet. 

From this substantial agreement of all these words in 
meaning — defined alike by lexicons generally, vindicated 
by an inspection of original sources — we have a clue, a 
key to some great and essential philological principles. 
By these we can arrive at a correct conclusion. 

We have examined bapto from the standpoint of sci- 
entific investigation. We saw sprinkle as the primary 
force of bapto. In a future chapter we will see a great 
number of words primarily meaning to sprinkle coming 



BAPTO — PRIMARY MEANING CONTINUED. 127 

to mean all that bapto means and lapping over all that 
baptidzo means. Let us here trace the process by which 
all these meanings are derived from bapto. It must not 
be forgotten that bapto appears in Greek literature as 
early as Homer but only a very few times in centuries, 
being a rare word; that baptidzo does not appear for 
quite five hundred years later, the incautious writer, like 
Ingham, not telling the reader that the Orpheus, iEsop, 
etc. he quotes are spurious and of a late date. Conant 
shows that fact. We have it demonstrated from the in- 
spection of cases and dates that bapto applied to cases of 
affusion, effusion, many centuries before it meant dye. It 
meant to stain centuries before it meant to dye. It meant 
to wash as early as it meant to color in any way beyond 
a stain effected by slight aspersion. These being historic 
facts are way-marks to help us. 

BAPTO AND PHILOLOGY. 

Now, no one believes that the art of dyeing was sud- 
denly invented and practiced. Such arts are always the 
result of accidental discovery from seeing the effects of 
the elements in nature. Though many saw apples fall 
and tea-kettles boil and lift their coverings, it was centu- 
ries before a Newton applied the suggestions of the one 
or a Watt or Fulton the power of the other. 

A person from breaking or bruising a weed, herb, or 
shell that had coloring matter in it ; from an incision in 
the bark of a tree causing a spurting out of juice, sap ; 
from bursting a grape or berry on the hands or clothes, 
would thus earliest discover the staining qualities of the 
attaching liquid. Seeing the effects, it might be such a 
color as would please some parties very much, and it 



128 BAPTISM. 

would be natural to go to work to apply the matter to 
color their faces, beard, hair, or garments. Bapto applies 
earlier to staining by centuries, we saw, than by dyeing. 
When they had used it thus for a time it would sooner or 
later turn out that parties would extend the discovery, 
and get enough of the coloring element to prepare orna- 
ments, adorn their clothes, and finally dilute the coloring 
matter in water, or collect enough to dye their garments. 
They would learn to dip the garments; first no doubt 
parts of it in one dye, parts in another, so as to have the 
" variegated garments," or, as in some cases, resort to 
needle-work. Whatever the word applied to the first 
stain, where it was by the slightest aspersion or dropping 
of the matter, it would remain the word through all the 
varying fortunes of the art. In the case under consider- 
ation bapto was the word. It must not be supposed that 
bapto was the favorite word. As late as the fourth cen- 
tury before Christ that learned and careful writer, Aris- 
totle, when speaking of the dyeing substance even, does 
not use bapto for dye but for moisten — if pressed " it moist- 
ens (bapto) and colors (anthidzei) the hand" — showing 
that bapto represented moisten of the slightest kind much 
more correctly than color or dye. That speaks volumes. 
It demonstrates additionally from the historic order that 
color, dye, is derived, and derived from it as meaning to 
moisten, not from to dip. Thus history, philology, and 
common observation all harmonize. All the historic light 
we have sustains these facts. The earliest colorings we 
read of, save one or two soon to be noticed, occur in Exo- 
dus xxv, 4; xxvi, 7, 31, 36, etc., which were purple. 
The Scriptures give no light whence these colors came. 
1 Maccabees iv, 23, calls them "purple (apo) from the 
sea." It is agreed that the colors were obtained "from 



BAPTO — PRIMARY MEANING CONTINUED. 129 

the juice of certain species of the shell-fish" (Kitto). 
"The majority" of ancients ascribe the discovery "to the 
Tyrian Hercules, whose dog, it is said, instigated by hun- 
ger, broke a certain kind of shell-fish on the coast of Tyre, 
and his mouth becoming stained of a beautiful color, his 
master was induced to try its properties on wool, and gave 
his first specimens to the king, who admired the color so 
much that he restricted the use of it by law to the royal 
garments."* The Tyrians practiced coloring thus for 
ages. As the Hebrews, Syrians, Arabians, and Chaldeans 
were all of kindred blood, language, and habit, their hab- 
its of coloring most likely began there. It is worth note 
that one of the leading words for baptize in Arabic, occur- 
ring often in the New Testament (tsava-tsevagha) in its 
noun-form, means the juice of a vine. But all this aside, 
we prefer and rely on the development and science of 
language, along with the record of facts. 

Facts now. First, bapto applied to sprinkling, to effu- 
sions. This was its first primary force. Second, it meant, 
consequently, both to moisten and stain; for to sprinkle 
or effuse with staining elements, blood, juices, etc., both 
moisten and stain result. Yet it does not necessarily ap- 
ply to staining ; it always implies moistening or wetting. 
It may be assumed that there is no case of bapto, a verb, 
without moisten. This is the only meaning or idea that 
never forsakes it in a single instance. Third, it never 
means to dye where it is by dipping till the last half of 
the fourth century before Christ, so far as facts go. Its 
corresponding Hebrew tabhal, in earlier Hebrew only cor- 
responding, the stain — molunein, in Greek; tingo, Latin; 
tabhal, Hebrew — is even in Genesis xxxvii, 31, better ren- 
dered with the Syriac sprinkled. 

* Pollox Onom., i, 4; Kitto, sub. v, purple. 



130 BAPTISM. 

Now baptidzo is a derivative of bapto. When was it 
formed — when first used? We can no more tell than we 
can as to bapto. Like bapto it was but seldom used. It 
first appears in a writer of the close of the sixth century 
before Christ. Immersionists all assert that baptidzo de- 
rives the primary meaning of bapto, but not the derived 
meanings (see A. Campbell, pp. 119, 120, Carson, etc., etc.) 
or figurative meanings of bapto. That will do us very 
well. But truth, and philology as its aid, we want. Bap- 
tidzo comes into use in the sixth century before Christ, we 
know. But bapto never meant dye nor applied to dyeing 
by dipping till Plato and Aristotle, so far as records go. 
It never applied to colored clothes till a hundred years after 
baptidzo appears in literature. Baptidzo not only antedates 
dye as a meaning of bapto, but dip, even a partial dip, as 
a meaning by a century. 

When baptidzo took its departure from bapto, it carried 
no stain, no dip, no dye with it. All agree that baptidzo 
never means to stain, color, paint, or dye. Drs. Gale, Car- 
son, Stuart, A. Campbell, etc., etc. dwell on this marked 
difference between the two words. Indeed they all make 
that the only difference. In that they greatly err, but we 
have no interest in that here.* 

Now the facts we have adduced account for the whole 
phenomena, so inexplicable to philologists. Had baptidzo 
been derived — been an extension of bapto — an intensifica- 
tion or frequentative of it after bapto meant stain, color, 
dye (Liddell &. Scott, A. Campbell, etc.), or put the object 
into the condition indicated by the root bapto (Kiihner, 
etc.), then baptidzo would have meant all that bapto does, 
only perhaps much intensified. All know and agree that 
this is not the case. 

* Dr. J. R. Graves, since the above was written, over and again 
notes the same fact in the Carrollton debate. 



BAPTO — PRIMARY MEANING CONTINUED. 131 

But supposing baptidzo to have been formed long be- 
fore it appears in the literature that has survived, as we 
know it did (for it first appears in a highly figurative form 
in all its earliest occurrences, Pindar, Aristophanes, Plato, 
Demosthenes pointing to an earlier literal meaning long 
in use), we can see why it never means color, stain, dye. 
It was formed as an intensive from bapto when bapto had 
but one meaning — to sprinkle. When we come to exam- 
ine baptidzo philologically this will appear with over- 
whelming force. It was when bapto meant no more than 
sprinkle that baptidzo was formed. Let any one examine 
the passages where bapto occurs throughout all ages, espe- 
cially for one thousand years from Homer to Christ, then 
baptidzo — the difference in use is almost infinite. The one, 
bapto, constantly occurs in respect to a slight contact, 
especially the element generally applied is small. It nev- 
er applies to bapting with great billows, waves of stormy 
seas, wars, and calamities, etc., etc. It even appears in 
contrast with baptidzo, sometimes both in classics and the 
Greek fathers. Yet at times both words apply to one and 
the same kind of operation late in their history, not early. 
We refer to cases where each equally applies to cutting or 
piercing with a sword. Both are so used, and we present 
a number of cases. Baptidzo implies a more copious af- 
fusion primarily than bapto. Hence we will see it much 
more naturally coming to mean to ivash, as the effect of 
descending water, then also overflow, overwhelm, and from 
thence to sink. Hence, really we will find that baptidzo 
never means to dip at all, but sink, immergo, when it does 
put the object into or under the element. 

On the contrary, neither A. Campbell, Carson, Gale, 
nor Stuart ever found an example where bapto meant im- 
merse. They can't find an example of baptidzo mean- 



132 BAPTISM. 

ing to dip in any true sense of the word in classic usage. 
We named the fact parenthetically that baptidzo first ap- 
pears in a highly metaphorical form. This will appear 
when we come to the word. This points to long use when 
it had its proper literal meaning. Both chronology and 
philology show clearly that baptidzo was in use before bapto 
took on the later meanings, dip and dye; the dip being 
derived from dye, not dye from dip; the dye from color, 
stain ; that from moisten, sprinkle. 

Herein we see clearly why bapto at times means to dip 
simply, but does not apply to immerse, a slight contact with 
the element being its general later use; whereas baptidzo 
being primarily intensified, a stronger form, implying in- 
tenser force, early passed over into pour, that into wash; 
also into overflow, overwhelm literally and metaphorically ; 
thence from overwhelming and overflowing — burdening 
by such heavy affusions — sink was taken on. Hence it can 
not mean dip — never means dip. A careful examination 
of the few passages in classics will show this, the strongest 
case being one in Plutarch, but clearly baptidzo {eh) there 
does not apply to dipping, but to drinking — becoming in- 
toxicated out of the wine-jars, etc. If dye is derived from 
dip, as immersionists all assume, and baptidzo inherits 
"dip" as the primary meaning of bapto, why did not bap- 
tidzo mean dye also? If dye comes from dip, why does 
not dupto, dip, and holumbao, dip, immerse, mean dye? 
And if dip and immerse are "synonymous," why do not 
the Greek verbs buthidzo, hatapontidzo, hataduo, which defi- 
nitely mean to immerse, and Hebrew tabha, immerse, 
mean to dye, stain, color — have the real meanings of tingo 
and of dip also ? * 

* Since the above was written, several years ago, 1870-72, the Graves- 
Ditzler debate occurred, and Dr. G. says, page 322, "As tingo once pri- 



BAPTO — PRIMARY MEANING CONTINUED. 133 

In a future chapter the mass of facts will be presented 
and the science of philology applied, putting all beyond 
a doubt, and, like the full-orbed sun scattering the mists 
and shadows of night, the dark night of false philology 
and assumption will be dissipated before the dawning of a 
better day. 

IS STAIN, DYE, FROM DIP? 

As Dr. Graves (Debate, 323), since all our facts were 
written, reiterates the old theory, not giving a word of 
proof, about dye, color, coming from dip, we now further 
add, in demonstration of our philological position, the 
words that generally mean to stain, color, dye — meanings 
all agree to give to the root bapto — and see if color, stain, 
dye came from dip, as has been universally assumed by 
immersionists, admitted by too many of their opponents. 

1. Moluno. Stephanus says, quoting another, its "prim- 
itive meaning is to sprinkle."* Yet Liddell & Scott 
define it "to stain, sully, defile, to sprinkle." 

Groves : " To dye, stain, discolor, tinge," etc. 

2. Tenggo (re^w). Liddell & Scott : " To wet, moisten, to 
bedew with, especially] with tears (dakrusi), to wash, to shed 
tears. Ombros etengeto, a shower fell. (2) To soften (prop- 
erly by soaking, bathing, etc.). (3) To dye, stain; Latin, 
tingere." "Dye, stain," he puts as derived meanings. 

Groves: Tengo, to moisten, wet, water, sprinkle, be- 
dew, to soften, soak, steep, relax, to tinge, dye, stain, 

marily meant to dip; second, to dye, now it has lost its first, and its 
secondary has become its ■primary''' signification. It is difficult to say 
what this means, but it shows confusion worse confounded, under only 
a few of the above facts. On page 323 he reiterates all the old jargon 
about " dye " from dip, but not a fact, text, or argument offered 1 

* Adspergere. 



134 BAPTISM. 

color, etc. So Donnegan, Pickering, Dunbar, Pape, Pas- 
sow, etc. 

3. Palasso. Liddell & Scott : " To besprinkle, to stain, 
befoul, defile." The staining, defiling, was from sprinkling 
blood, etc., etc. 

4. Anthidzo, to sprinkle.* Liddell & Scott : " To strew 
with flowers, to deck as with flowers, and so to dye or 
stain with colors. Passive, to bloom, to be dyed or paint- 
ed, sprinkled with white, browned." 

Groves : " To bud, blossom, etc., to strew with flowers, 
to color, tinge, f dye." 

5. Chraino. Liddell & Scott : "To touch slightly. Hence 
to smear, to paint, to besmear, to anoint, to stain, spot, to 
defile." 

Groves : " To color, dye, stain, smear, daub, paint," etc. 

6. Miaino: "To paint over, to stain, dye, defile, soil" 
(Liddell & Scott). 

Groves: "To stain, dye, color, to polish, defile," etc. 

7. Chrodzo : " To touch the surface of the body ; gener- 
ally to touch, to impart by touching the surface ; hence to 
tinge, f stain," etc. (Liddell & Scott). 

Groves : " To color, paint, tinge,f dye, stain," etc. 
Chrotidzo: "To color, dye, tint"f (Liddell & Scott). 

8. Spilo; "To stain, soil" (Liddell & Scott). 
Graves: "To spot, stain, blot, defile." 

9. Deuo: "To wet, water, moisten, bedew, sprinkle, to 
tinge,f dye, color, to soak, soften" (Groves). 

Stephanus: "To wet, moisten, imbue, stain (tingo),f 
pour, besprinkle, infect, stain, baphaeus." 

10. Poluno: "To strew, scatter upon, to besprinkle, 

* Stephanus . . . adspergo. 

t Notice here how often tinge, tint, is used ; tingo where the processes 
or modes are by sprinkle, touch, etc., and not dip. 



BAPTO — PRIMARY MEANING CONTINUED. 135 

snow sprinkled the fields, to sprinkle with flour" (Lid- 
dell & Scott). 

Here now are ten words, counting chrotidzo as one, not 
one of which ever had dip as a primary or general mean- 
ing. Every one accomplished the coloring, staining, ting- 
ing, dyeing by application of the coloring element. Yet 
they tell us dyeing, coloring, etc. are effected always by 
dipping. There is now one more Greek word that means 
to dye, stain, color, tinge as well as to sprinkle, wet, etc. 
Liddell & Scott, the favorite immersionist lexicon, gives 
bapto these meanings among others : " To color," " to dye 
the hair," " to steep in crimson." Groves gives, " Dye," 
"stain," "color," as well as "dip," "sprinkle, "wet," 
"moisten." Is it not governed by the same laws of lan- 
guage? All the other ten words that have the meanings 
it has have either sprinkle or bedew, the same, "touch 
slightly," "to touch the surface of the body," "to shed 
tears" as the primary meanings. (1) In all the primary 
meaning was either sprinkle, shed, as tears, dew, or touch. 
One was by sprinkling flowers. This forever settles the 
question about dyeing, coloring, coming from dip. (2) As 
words meaning dip (dupto), immerse,* never mean to dye, 
color, it shows bapto never primarily meant to dip. 

It has now been demonstrated — 

1. That bapto primarily applied to sprinkling, to effu- 
sion, where liquids were the elements, either blood, or water, 
or juice, sap, staining, or moistening elements. 
, 2. That it applied where the slightest possible aspersion 
occurred, even a few drops — Homer, Hippocrates, Aris- 
totle, Aristophanes. 

3. That dye, stain, color do not come from, are never 
meanings of words that properly and generally mean to 
* Bvdifaj Karadvo), etc. See them all elsewhere immerse. 



136 BAPTISM. 

dip, as dupto, kolumbao in Greek; tauchen, tunken in Ger- 
man; dip in English; or from immerse — pontidzo, en, and 
kataduo, buthidzo, katapontidzo in Greek ; mergo, in, de, and 
submerge* in Latin. So of Hebrew, Arabic, Persic, Chal- 
dee, Syriac. In no case does color, stain, dye come from 
dip or immerse. 

4. But in scores of cases stain, color, paint, dye come 
from words primarily meaning to sprinkle, and from words 
primarily meaning to moisten, where it is by sprinkling, 
dropping upon, etc. Even molunein, stain, primarily 
meant to sprinkle. The full list of such words will be 
given under baptidzo. 

5. Immersionists are unanimous in the assertion that 
immerse and dip can never come to mean to sprinkle or 
to pour. We agree to this. It is unquestionably true. 
But we see bapto used where dropping, sprinkling, pour- 
ing, touching with the element occur, as well as falling of 
dew on the body. So overwhelming is the evidence that 
Dr. Carson is compelled to admit, and the rest concur, that 
ie Use is the sole arbiter of language. Bapto signifies to dye 
by sprinkling as properly as by dipping, though orig- 
inally it was confined to the latter" (Baptism, 63). The 
latter remark has been shown to be utterly incorrect from 
chronological facts as well as from philology. As immer- 
sionists so pointedly assert that dip can never come to mean 
to sprinkle — a word properly meaning dip — and yet are 
compelled to admit bapto does so apply, it shows that 
sprinkle, and not dip, was the primary meaning of this 
word. But, 

6. When it is known, as will be exhibited under bap- 
tidzo, that great numbers of words primarily mean to 
sprinkle, others to moisten, wet, where the mode was 
sprinkling, dropping, yet come to mean derivatively all 



BAPTO PRIMARY MEANING CONTINUED. 137 

that bapto and all that baptidzo are admitted by all par- 
ties to mean, then it becomes as perfectly demonstrated 
that bapto primarily meant to sprinkle, as that things 
equal to each other are equal to the same. 

7. That dip is later, rarer, a derived meaning of bapto. 

8. That immerse is unknown as a meaning when " in- 
spection " tests the matter, themselves being judges. 

9. That in the Bible it clearly retains sprinkle as one 
of its meanings still, while it never implies immersion. 

10. That the fathers of the earliest ages — Irenseus, born 
only a few years before John's death, Origen, and Hippol- 
ytus, all learned Greeks, translate bapto sprinkle. 

11. That the versions from apostolic times till the six- 
teenth century render bapto sprinkle as well as by other 
terms. 

12. Over and again A. Campbell asserts that bapto and 
baptidzo are the same in meaning. So does Drs. Carson, 
pp. 19, 18, and 23, and Gale, quoted also by Carson. See 
Carson also, p. 315. While we do not sanction this, we 
produce it to show how they regard it. 

12 



138 BAPTISM. 



CHAPTER XIII. 

Lexicons on Baptidzo. 

We will now cite the most critical, the most popular 
and authoritative and universally-recognized standards 
of Greek lexicography known. In the list we give the 
entire body of native lexicographers who define this word.* 
Writers on this* subject have skipped from bapto to bap- 
tidzo in lexical citations, and bounded to and fro in classic 
citations, and Mr. A. Campbell, not to be outdone, doubles 
down the lexicon into defining " bapto et baptidzo " as one 
word, on several occasions, when no lexicon on earth ever 
made such a stupendous blunder. Booth, and my good 
friend Dr. G. W. Brents, of Tennessee, string out long 
lines of theologians small and great, historians read and 
unread, authorities learned and ignorant, and lexicons 
good, bad, and doubly indifferent, together with private 
letters partisanly written, glossaries on single books or 
authors — all confusedly mixed and jumbled together into 
a strange, crude, and indigestible mass, heterogeneously 
mixed up, till confusion is confounded, and, in nine tenths 
of the cases words and sentences enough left out to defeat 
all hope of accuracy and analysis. In many cases, also, 
the real lexicons cited are some Arabic, some Hebrew, 

* Following others, we once quoted Suidas on baptidzo, but he does 
not define it at all. Hesychius and Suidas give to bapto only its rare 
meaning, wash, pluno, and are not cited for that reason under bapto. 
Dr. Graves still keeps up the old blunder of quoting Suidas on baptidzo, 
all apocryphal. 



LEXICONS ON BAPTIDZO. 139 

some Syriac — all quoted as if Greek, and on baptidzo ! 
We have carefully avoided all these absurdities. 

Yet, on account of their early period and great advan- 
tages, and because they define and translate the word, act- 
ing from the standpoint of lexicography, we do cite four 
authorities who never compiled lexicons. But they trans- 
late the word used by Messiah in the commission to bap- 
tize, and for that reason we quote them at once. They are 
the only authors of all antiquity we have found that de- 
fine the word. Hence they are too valuable to be omitted 
in this place. 

1. Julianus, fourth century after Christ : "Baptidzo 
means to sprinkle." * 

Julianus j was one of the most acute and profoundly 

* BaTTTi^u perfundere interpretatus est. Beza's Annotationes Greece 
Nou. Test. y Matt, iii, 11, ed. 1598, folio. Dr. Graves, since the above, 
Debate, p. 258, tanslates perfundere " besprinkle." 

It is a painful fact that after all the exposures we have made, had 
made in the Louisville Debate, and in various papers, of misquotations, 
suppressions of essential points in lexical citations as well as of authors, 
and the severe chastisement we gave some authors at Carrollton, Mo., 
1875, that still partisans and mere controversialists will not agree to be 
governed by a spirit of fairness. Dr. Graves, e. g. professing to quote 
forty (40) Greek lexicons (Graves-Ditzler Debate, pp. 322, 529), in the 
list puts down a number of mere glossaries, mere lexica ; a private letter 
reported as a lexicon (!); one as Trommius's lexicon, . when it is also a 
glossary, and not made nor published by Trommius; and a long list of 
authors reported as lexicons whom he never saw, whose works he never 
consulted, and whose relative merits are never distinguished — all thrown 
together in a heterogeneous and undigested mass, without analysis, order, 
or accuracy. And to make bad worse, only one lexicon out of the so- 
called forty is correctly reported!! In every lexicon cited, save one, 
most essential definitions are suppressed, and essential words left out in 
all cases save the single exception ! 

Then after the rebuke we gave Dr. Judd and him at Carrollton, 
which he never resented there (pp. 146-7), Dr. Graves in his last speech 
— not as delivered, but as rewritten by him after I had returned to Ken- 
tucky (p. 530) — repeats the shameful untruth, and says, "Amad in 



140 BAPTISM. 

versed opponents Augustine had, and was in that early 
day thoroughly acquainted with these questions. * 

2. Augustine, fourth century, next to Jerome the most 
illustrious of Latin fathers, admits Julianus's definitions, 
and seeks to limit or distinguish already between Bible 
and classic use. 

3. Tertullian, A. D. 190 to 220, renders baptidzo by 
sprinkle, f 

Syriac, as all standard lexicographers testify, primarily sig- 
nifies to immerse " ! ! A more willful falsehood was never uttered 
by any perjured, oath-bound member of a robber clan on earth. These, 
with hosts of other statements in these last speeches on Mode, and all 
subsequent parts of the so-called debate, account for their not sending 
to me a single proof-sheet after my sixteenth speech on the First Prop- 
osition, though I requested it, and gave them my address. (For Castell's 
definition and " primary " force of the word, see the Debate, p. 147, 
with the original given.) In the same strain he defies decency on page 
531, from XI Y on to XX. Here he pretends that all these Methodist, 
Presbyterian, and eminent pedobaptist scholars, " full one hundred," 
embracing Terretinus, "Witsius, Beza, Wesley, A. Clarke, Vossius, Light- 
foot, Stier, "Walaeus, M. Stuart, as the most noted, held that " immersion 
was the only act of Apostolic or primitive baptism " ! ! Dr. Graves as 
well knew that every word of the above was without any foundation or 
truth as he knew he held his pen in hand, and that every one of the 
above writers maintained just the reverse. (See them all quoted in this 
work, as well as in that debate.) 

^Adversus quern eruditissimos libros scripsit Augustinus ; Beza, ibid. 

t Perfudit. Thus : llli quos Menander perfudit, " those whom Men- 
ander baptized " — sprinkled. De Anima, c. 51. Irenseus, a.d. 160, uses 
"baptized " of them instead of "perfudit." 

"We have known partisans who tried to evade the force of perfudit, 
as if it implied a very copious pouring all over the person, which, 
though it changes not our argument, is not true, as the following use of 
it shows : 

1. Stokius : 'Vaivu, raino [sprinkle], perfundo, adspergo. 

2. Ed. Leigh, Sacra Critica : 'Vaivu, perfundo, aspergo. 

3. Schleusner, O. T. Lexicon : 'Vavri(,w, etc., a baivo, perfundo, . . . 
sic usurpatur de sanguine (Heb. ix, 13, 19, etc.); sprinkle, "from raino, 
to sprinkle. Thus it is used of the blood, etc. (Heb. ix, 13, 19, etc.). 



LEXICONS ON BAPTIDZO. 141 

4. Euththymius, fourth century, besprinkle * [sprinkle]. 

5. Codex Sinaiticus, besprinkle f [sprinkle]. 

6. Codex Yaticanus, besprinkle J [sprinkle]. 

7. Kouma, a native Greek of this century, the lexicon 
written at great length in modern Greek : " Baptidzo, 
from bapto, to sink, to put frequently into water; to be- 
sprinkle^ shed forth (or sprinkle). 2. To draw or pump 
water. 3. In an ecclesiastical sense, to baptize. " ^[ 

4. Stephanus, Thesaurus Grazcoz Lin. : 'Patvw, per/undo, aspergo 
(p. 8175). 

5. Schrevellius : 'Pa'tvo, perfundo, aspergo. Thus all the lexicons 
define the Greek sprinkle by per/undo, and as equivalent to aspergo. 

Scores of texts in Latin could be cited to the same effect ; the fol- 
lowing samples suffice: Ovid, in the apostolic age, "She took water, 
and — perfudit — sprinkled it on his face (Met. iii, 190); "And — perfudit 
— sprinkled the wide ditches with blood" (Met. vii, 245); Castell uses 
perfudit caput, perfudit aqua — sprinkle the head, sprinkle with water, 
often ; as well as Schindler, Buxtorf, etc. 

* "PavriacjvTai, in Mark vii, 4. Alford's and A. Clarke's Notes on, 
and the Tischendorff Sinaitic manuscript. 

t ''PavTiotiv-ai, in Mark vii, 4. 

X 'VavTLocivraL, in Mark vii, 4. Eight others rendered it sprinkle. 

§ In the light of this chapter, how does the language of A. Campbell 
and others appear, when they so boldy asserted that " It never has been 
translated by either sprinkle or pour by any lexicographer for eighteen 
hundred years." 

Dr J. R. Graves, followed by swarms of others, says, in The Baptist, 
Nov. 6, 1875, "Not one of them [thirty-two Greek lexicographers 
claimed] defines it [baptidzo] to pour or to sprinkle." He modified it 
thus in his unspoken, written speech, where he knew I would not see it 
till in the published book, too late to be exposed in the work (p. 526). 
In capitals he says, "No standard lexicon in the world gives 'to 
sprinkle,' or 'to pour ' as a literal and real signification of baptidzo." If 
Baptists are edified by such reckless dealing we ought to be satisfied. 
He then pretends to call on me "to produce one Greek lexicon of ac- 
knowledged authority, or an authoritative quotation from one, that gives 
1 to sprinkle ' or ' to pour ' as a primary meaning of baptidzo." He 
has not done it." Capitals his own in this line. He well knew he 
never said that in the debate. Such hypocrisy is contemptible. 

f Kouma: Bair-i^u M. icu en tov fiaTZTu; fivdifa, fiovrti avxv&Kic elc 
ipyov, Karafipkxu-i ftp^X^- 2. 'Avr/U>. 3. BairTifa . . . ekkXtjc. 2. 



142 BAPTISM. 

8. Sophocles, restricted to the Iron Age or later Greek, 
is an immersionist, and a favorite with them. "Baptidzo, 
to dip, to immerse ; sink, to be drowned [as the effect of 
sinking] ; to sink. Trop., to afflict ; soaked in liquor ; to 
be drunk, intoxicated. 2. Mid., to perform ablution; 
to bathe ; bathed [baptized] in tears ; to plunge a knife. 
4. [Ecclesiastical in Dark Ages] : Baptizo, mergo, mergito, 
tingo (or tinguo), to baptize ; New Testament, passim. " * 
Baptism with tears is hardly a clear case of dipping or im- 
mersing. 

9. Schsetgennius. "Baptidzo: First, properly (i. e. in 
classics) to plunge, sink in (immerse) ; second, to wash, 
to cleanse (Mark vii, 4 ; Luke xi, 38) ; third, to baptize, in 
a sacred sense. Metaphorically it means, first, to pour 
forth abundantly (Matt, iii, 11; Acts i, 5, etc.); second, 
to be subjected to great dangers and burdens " f (classic ref- 
erence to Diodorus Siculus, etc., as well as one to Matthew 
xx, 22, of Christ's sufferings). 

10. "Wahl. He has two editions. In the first the New 
Testament meanings are given thus : "First, to wash (clas- 
sic, to sink down, submerse); second, to immerse; third, 
metaphorically, overwhelm any thing with any thing; 
to imbue plentifully, as with the divine Spirit," etc. 

In his second later edition it reads, Wahl, baptidzo 
(1831)— 

* "Where it is "baptized" in tears, he cites the Greek thus, BaKri^eadai 
ralg daicpvoi, which is, " baptized with tears." The word occurs in Euse- 
bius's Greek History, where John the Apostle "baptized" a penitent 
who had backslidden " as if a second time with his tears," as well as in 
other writers. 

tBairri^u — 1. Proprie mergo, immergo ; 2. Abhco, lavo (Marc, vii, 4; 
Luke xi, 35) ; 3. Baptizo, significatu sacro, metaphorice accipitur et sig- 
nificat. 1. Largitur prof undo (Matt, iii, 11; Acts i, 5) ; 2. Multis peric- 
ulis et oneribus subjiceo (Matt, xx, 22) ; eadem sensu apud profanos 
occurrere, etc. 



LEXICONS ON BAPTIDZO. 143 

I. "To immerse (Josephus, Ant., ix, 10, 2; Polyb. i, 51, 
6, classic use), (a) properly, also, of the sacred immersion, 
then by immersion ; (b) with the idea of overwhelming 
included; to sprinkle,* followed with the dative of the 
instrument, etc., with water. Metaphorically, for to im- 
bue largely; (c) to plunge in or overwhelm with calamities. 
2. "For nipto, wash, i. e. Mark vii, 3." Later he erases 
sprinkle. 

II. Grimshaw. Baptidzo : To wash, dip, besprinkle.f 

12. Ewing, 1827, Glasgow. "Baptidzo: I plunge or 
sink completely under water, I cover partially with water, 
I wet; third, I overwhelm or cover with water by rush- 
ing, flowing, or pouring upon . . . ; fourth, I drench or 
impregnate with liquor by affusion; I pour abundantly 
upon, so as to wet thoroughly ; I infuse . . . ; I wash." J 

13. Ed. Robinson's Lexicon of the New Testament 
(classic use he gives first, as), to dip in, to sink, to im- 
merse; in Greek writers, spoken of ships, galleys, etc. 
Polyb. i, 51 ; Diod. Sic, Strabo, Plut. ... In the New 
Testament, first, to wash, to lave, to cleanse by washing; 
second, to wash oneself, i. e. one's hands or person, to 
perform ablution ; § third, to baptize, etc. He then adds 
in a note to the word: 

* Per/undo, sq. dat., etc. . . . pro viirTu, lavo. In first edition, in 
brackets, he has demerge-, submergo (Polyb. i, 51-6; Diod. Sic, etc.). 

t This is the only lexicon we have accepted from other than the 
original on the lexicons on baptidzo. 

% This wild definition, so labored and strange, is the only one given 
that really gives a meaning that exactly suits immersionists — "sink 
completely under water." Water no more inheres in baptidzo than oil, 
honey, mud, or filth, as Conant, Carson, A. Campbell, etc., show. 

§Dr. Graves (Debate, p. 281) cites him thus: "To immerse, to 
sink ; 2. To wash, to cleanse by washing," etc., and leaves out the note. 
He carefully leaves out also the words " In New Teat." preceding the 
words " to wash, to lave, cleanse," etc., after asserting that no standard 
lexicon makes a difference between classic and New Testament use I 



144 BAPTISM. 

["Note. — While in Greek writers, as above exhibited, from Plato 
onward, ^aTvri^o) is every where to sink, to immerse, to overwhelm, either 
wholly or partially, yet in Hellenistic usage ... it would seem to have 
expressed, not always simply immersion, but the more general idea of 
ablution or affusion." Ed. 1854.] 

14. Stokius. We next take up this author, old school 
of philology, and for years paraded by immersionists as 
having no superior!* 

" Baptidzo : To wash, to baptize ; passive, to be washed, 
to be cleansed." f He then gives the current classic use 
and the old-time philology in his usual note to a word of 
any extended use in the New Testament, thus: "Gener- 
ally, and by the force of the word, it obtains the sense of 
dipping or immersing.J Specially (a) properly it is to 
immerse or dip in water; (a) tropically (1) by a metalepsis, 
it is to wash (lavare) or cleanse (abluere), because any thing 
is accustomed to be dipped or immersed in water that it 
may be washed or cleansed, although also the washing or 
cleansing can be, and generally is, accomplished by 
sprinkling the water (Mark vii, 4; Luke xi, 38). 

* That you may see how much importance is attached to the opinion 
of Stokius, I will read you from A. Campbell's works : " Has he pro- 
duced a lexicon, of the eighteen centuries past, giving sprinkle or pour 
as the proper or as the figurative meaning of baptidzo ? . . Let him 
produce any modern dictionary, English, French, Spanish, German, etc., 
thus expounding the Greek words bapto or baptidzo" (Debate, p. 181). 

Of Stokius: "This great master of sacred literature" (Debate, 
p. 60) ; " One of the most learned rabbis in the school and learning of 
orthodoxy " (Debate, p. 206) ; " The two still more venerable names of 
Schleusner and Stokius " (Debate, p. 208). " Schleusner, a man revered 
by orthodox theologians, and of enviable fame " (Debate, p 58). 

A. C. (Debate, p. 208) declares Stokius and Schleusner "are still 
more decidedly with us [them] . . . than any one or all of the classic 
dictionaries." 

t Ba-rvrl^cj, lavo, baptizo, passivum fiairTi£ouat, luor, lavor. Lavo is to 
wash, wet, bedew, besprinkle, by all lexicons. 

X It might equally well be dipping and immerse, but I prefer to fol- 
low immersion translations, unless they grossly depart from the original. 



LEXICONS ON BAPTIDZO. 145 

Hence it is transferred to the sacrament of baptism. . . . 
3. Metaphorically it designates (a) the miraculous pour- 
ing out {effusionem) of the Holy Spirit upon the apostles 
and other believers, as well on account of the abundance 
of the gifts of the Holy Spirit, since anciently the water 
was copiously poured upon those baptized, or they were 
immersed deep in the water," etc.* 

Here Stokius adopts the old theory held by Suicer, 
Vossius, Beza, Terretinus, etc., that baptidzo came to mean 
to wash derivatively, then to wash by sprinkling. And 
he cites two New Testament texts where it refers to Jew- 
ish baptisms thus effected, for in both it is baptidzo (Mark 
vii, 4; Luke xi, 38). Then as Jewish baptism (lotio, ablu- 
tio- baptidzo, and baptismos) was effected generally "by 
sprinkling the water," u hence it is transferred to desig- 
nate the sacrament of baptism." Then he tells us meta- 
phorically it designated the pouring out of the Spirit. 
Why so? He tells us, "Since anciently the water was 
copiously poured upon those baptized," etc.f Because 

* Banri^u, lavo, baptizo, passivum, luor, lavbr. Then he adds a note : 

1. Generatim ac vi vocis intinctionis ac immersionis notionem obtinet. 

2. Speciatim, (a) proprie est immergere ac intingere in aquam; (b) tropice, 
(1) per metalipsin est, lavare, abluere, quia aliquid intingi ac immergi 
solet in aquam ut lavetur, vel abluatur quamquam et adspergendo 
aquam, lotio vel ablutio fieri queat et soleat (Mark vii, 4: Luke xi, 38). 
Hinc transferetur ad baptismi sacramentum, etc. . . . Per Met. designat 
(a) miraculosam spiritus S. [sancti] effusionem super apostolos, aliosque 
credentes, turn ob donorum spiritus S., copiam, prout oltm aqua bapti- 
zandis copiose AFFUNDEBATUR, vel Mi penitus in aquam immergeban- 
tur, etc. 

t Dr. Graves (Debate p. 354) says, " Stokius says that properly it 
means only • to immerse,' ' to dip into,' " etc. Where is the u only " ? 
He cites the Latin from my lexicon, which he borrowed, as he borrowed 
Leigh, Castell, etc., at Carrollton; but there is no "only," nay he has 
him translated, but no "only," He admits he says it "was by sprin- 
kling," as above, but that was merely Stokius's " opinion." All he said 
was simply "opinion; " all as to "immerse" or "dip in water," to wash, 

13 



146 BAPTISM. 

the water was thus poured on those baptized in the apos- 
tolic age they metaphorically applied the word to the 
Spirit's influence, etc. How plain and simple.* 

15. H. Cremer, second edition, 1878. This is a"Bib- 
lio-Theological Lexicon of the New Testament Greek/' 
from the second German edition, by W. Urwick. " Bap- 
tidzo : To immerse, to submerge ; often in later Greek, Plut., 
etc." After "immerse and submerse," as "later" classic 
meanings, he urges that rachats [wash], louo [wash], and 
niptesthai [wash the hands] (Matt, xv, 2), for which Mark 
vii, 4, has baptidzesthai are all one. Then he says, " Ex- 
pressions like Isaiah i, 16 ["wash you"], and prophesies like 
Ezekiel xxxi, 25 [" then will I sprinkle clean water upon 
you "], xxxvii, 23 [" cleanse them "] ff., Zechariah xiii, 1, 
are connected with the Levitical washings, etc. . . This is 
the reason also why baptidzein in itself was not a thing 
unknown to the Jews." On Luke iii, 16, John i, 33, and 
Matthew iii, 11, he urges that " it makes no material differ- 
ence whether en [in, with] be taken locally [i. e. in water] 
or instrumentally [en hudati, with water]. It is the for- 
mer, if in baptidzein, with the meaning to dip, we main- 

and a very erroneous opinion at that, against all facts and the science 
of language. But that is Stokius. 

* To ward off Stokius's testimony, the immersionists quote him on 
baptisma, where S. abridges his language, and refers to baptism, "in 
which those to he baptized were formerly immersed into water ; though 
at this time the water is only sprinkled upon them," etc. I copy Dr. 
Graves's own version of it (Debate, p. 353). Now of this — 1. Stokius 
is not denning baptidzo, but baptisma, a word not used once in all the 
gospels for Christian baptism. 2. No Scripture text, not one, is cited by 
Stokius. He cites a host where the sprinkle water — and pour apply — 
after his hinc — hence, because the water was sprinkled, etc. — hence 
transferred to the sacrament of baptism. 3. He is talking of its use by 
the fathers after the apostolic age. Hence his word, " They call it [the 
sacrament] of initiation " — " first sacrament." "Where is it so called in 
the New Testament. 



LEXICONS ON BAPTIDZO. 147 

tain the idea of immersion ; it is the latter [with] if we 
maintain the idea of a washing or a pouring over." He 
had said already, " That the meaning ' to wash in order 
to purification from sin/ is metaphorical, and not that 
of " immerse/ is clear from the contraposition of en 
%udati and en pneumati [baptize with wate* — with the 
Spirit], by which the two baptisms are distinguished from 
each other. Both in the case of John and of the Messiah 
the question was one of purification from sin, which the 
former effected by means of water, the latter by means of 
the Holy Spirit and fire. Cf. [compare] Ezekiel xxxvi, 25- 
27 ; Malachi iii, 2, 3 j Isaiah vi, 6, 7." Then follows the 
above extract beginning "It makes no material differ- 
ence/' etc. Cremer, like Havernick, Ebrard, and hosts of 
others, holds Ezekiel xxxvi, 25, " sprinkles," to be bap- 
tism. That baptism is not immersion. 

As my exposures of immersion quotations of these 
authors stung them into madness, they have resorted to 
the most astounding dodges and bold and most reckless 
accusations in order to draw off attention from their bad 
use of these authors. Hence we give the full text both in 
the original and the translation, with the exposure of their 
reckless criticisms and assertions appended, that all may 
see the simple desperation of their leaders in the West. 

16. Schleusner. Baptidzo: Properly,* I immerse or 

• BaTTTi^o). 1. Proprie, immergo, ac intingo in aquam mergo, a /?d7rrw, 
et respondet, Hebrew ^5^ [tabhaU] — 2 Keg. v, 14; in vers. Alex, et ^2tj> 
[tabha~\, apud symmachum (Ps. lxviii, 5) ; et apudincertum (Ps. ix, 6). In 
hac significatione nunquam in N. T. sed eo frequentius in Script. Greek 
legitur, v. c. (Diod. Sic. i, chap. 36), de Nilo exundente [text of land 
animals submersed, etc.] — Strabo, Polyb., etc. . . . Jam, quia haud raro 
aliquid immergi ac intingi in aquam solet, ut lavetur hinc. 2. Abluo, 
lavo, aqua purgo notat. Sic legitur in N. T. (Marc, vii, 4), nal awd 
ayopac lav firj fta7rri(J0)VTai (in quibusdam codd., pavriouvrai), oik hodiovoi 
[Latin rendering — et res sq.~\ — Luc. xi, 38 [texts in bis Latin — aqua 



148 BAPTISM. 

dip, I plunge into [or in] water, from bapto, and answers to 
the Hebrew tabhal [i. e. translates tabhal~\, 2 Kings v, 14, 
in the Alexandrian version [LXX], and to tabha, in Sym- 
machus, Psalm lxviii, 3 [really], and in an unknown [un- 
certain as to its translator] Psalm ix, 6. But in this 
sense it never occurs in the New Testament, but very fre- 
quently in Greek [classic] writers; for example, Diodorus 
Siculus, Strabo, etc., of the overflowing of the Nile, etc., 
Polybius, etc 

" Now, because not unfrequently [rarely] a thing is im- 
mersed or dipped in water that it may be washed ; hence, 
second [it means], to cleanse, to wash, to purify with 
water. Thus it occurs in the New Testament.* Mark 
vii, 4 [translated by him], Luke xi, 38 [copied likewise 
and translated in Latin]. [He notes that in some texts — 
codices — it reads sprinkle (rantisontai) instead of " bap- 
tize themselves "]. Baptidzesthai not only means to wash, 
but to wash oneself, etc. Eccles. xxxiv, 30; Judith 
xii, 8. Hence transferred to the solemn rite of baptism. 
[Detailed comments follow.] Fourth, metaphorically, as 
the Latin, to imbue, to give to largely and copiously, and 
to administer, to pour forth abundantly (Matt, iii, 11), 
etc". 

Here this great lexicographer gives immerse, dip, 

oblutce et purgatce fuerint — se non lavasse]. Batr, non solum lavari, sed 
etiam se lavare significare multis locis probare potest (Sirac. xxxiv, 30) 
[text.] ; Judith xii, 8 [text]. 3. Hinc transferetur ad baptismi ritum 
solemnem, etc. [Detailed comment and texts — not on mode, follow.] 4. 
Metaphorice : ut Lot. imbuo, large et copiose do atque suppedito, largiter 
profundo (Matt, iii, 11). 

* After all this pains by Stokius, and more still, if possible, by 
Schleusner, to distinguish between the classic and New Testament use 
of baptidzo, Dr. Graves (Debate, 527) says, "It is not true that any 
standard lexicon distinguishes between classic Greek and New Testa- 
ment Greek in giving definitions of baptidzo" ! ! Was ever mortal so 
reckless who believed in a God ? 



LEXICONS ON BAPTIDZO. 149 

plunge, in which sense it often occurs in classic Greek, as 
he holds, and in the sense of sink it does often so occur, 
and of overflow, overwhelm ; but he adds, " In this sense 
it never occurs in the New Testament." In what sense, 
then, does it occur in the New Testament? In the sense 
of " cleanse, wash, purify with water." In certain ancient 
codices it reads sprinkle for baptize. In what other sense 
does it occur in the New Testament ? Among others, " to 
pour forth abundantly." * 

* As might be expected, garbling the text, suppression, and the bold- 
est dealing have distinguished some of the western immersionists on this 
author. It has been assumed that " in this sense it does not occur in 
the New Testament," means in the sense of tabha, as distinguished from 
tabhal [! !], but by no scholar. We translated it as it is. Our views are 
supported — 

1. By the very language itself. Schleusner says expressly of these 
meanings — cleanse, wash, purify, "Thus it occurs in the New Testament." 
He cited the well-known passages Mark vii, 4 ; Luke xi, 38, which were 
Jewish baptisms, and renders them "wash." 

Then he cites the fact that in certain ancient manuscripts of the 
Bible it read, instead of baptize themselves, sprinkle [ rantisontai ] 
themselves. Nine of them thus read. The two oldest copies of the 
Bible known in the world read " sprinkle " for " baptize." He cites 
Judith xii, 7, where she baptized — Itti rijc Trrjyrjc rov vdarog — at the fount- 
ain of water, washed ; and Ecclesiasticus, " He that — [baptidzo] bap- 
tizeth — washeth himself from a dead body," etc., and he translates them 
all "wash." Then he tells us— since he showed it applied among the 
Jews to washing, and so many ancient copies had it sprinkle, that hence 
the word is transferred [i. e. from this Jewish use for ages by the Jews] 
to the solemn rite of baptism. 

2. It is perfectly evident further from the fact that he defines its 
New Testament use to be "imbuo" largitur prof undo — "to imbue, to 
pour forth abundantly." These are not meanings of tabhal or tabha in 
any case. 

3. The words " in hac siqnificatione " can not refer to tabha, u but 
in this sense " of tabha as distinguished from tabhal, for the punctu- 
ation unites them, and the et — et — "to tabhal and to tabha." To evade 
this, Dr. Graves absolutely suppresses the et — throws it out in trans- 
lating it (Debate, p. 347). Nor again, because of the absurdity im- 
plied; for tabhal occurs with blood the first time it appears in the 



150 BAPTISM. 

It may be that we do not know how to sympathize with 

our good immersionist friends, but they must bear these 

exposures. 

world (Gen. xxxvii, 31, and Ex. xii, 22 ; and in other passages in Levit- 
icus) ; with oil also. Dr. Graves, and others whom he follows, makes 
Schleusner say baptidzo does not occur in the sense of tabhal in the two 
verses given ; but it does occur in the sense of tabhal (2 Kings v, 14) — 
" dipped himself." But is that its New Testament sense ? Do they dip 
themselves in the New Testament. If it is used only for " dip himself," 
and only in the sense of tabhal, whence comes S.'s " wash, cleanse, purify, 
pour forth abundantly"? Tabhal in Bible use never means wash, 
cleanse, purify. - It occurs in connection with blood, oil, etc. oftener 
than any thing else, as Dr. Graves's own citations show (Debate, pp. 
487, 489). 

4. Dr. Graves, in his blundering way (Debate, p. 348) says, "And 
that it also corresponds to tava [tabhal in Psalm lxviii, 5, ' Thou hast 
overwhelmed (i. e. destroyed by an overwhelming) cities,' and in an un- 
known writer, a gloss; or (Ps. ix, 6) ' Their memorial is perished' (by an 
overwhelming that covers it out of sight). But in this sense it is never 
used in the New Testament. In what sense ? Unquestionably the lat- 
ter, as tava is used in these two passages. In the sense, then, of to de- 
stroy by immersing it is never used in the New Testament." Again 
(Debate, p. 412) he says the same, in brief, thus: "Undoubtedly [it 
refers] to the last, tava, which is used in the two Psalms referred to, in 
the sense of to destroy by overflowing ; and Schleusner declares that in 
this sense, i. e. to drown, to perish by the submersion, it is never used 
in the New Testament." He tells us of Baptist doctors sustaining 
this ! ! 

Does it not occur to their minds that this absurd theory destroys 
their position on several other points ? — e. g. where Dr. G. insists that no 
standard lexicon distinguishes between classic and New Testament use 
(Debate, p. 527). 

Also, that Dr. G. himself cites classic cases where baptidzo destroys by 
drowning, and that Conant points out many such places? But let us 
examine him in detail to see how reliable are Baptist criticisms here. 

Dr. Graves and his backers make tabha (tava) apply to overwhelm- 
ings. It never so applies in any passage in the Bible, and no lexicon 
that ever was made translates it " overwhelm " or " overflow," or by any 
like word. But let us read the two passages cited by Schleusner (Ps. 
ix, 6 — in the Hebrew, ix, 16 ; in James, ix, 15). " The heathen are sunk 
— tabha — down in the pit that they made." Now where is the over- 
whelm of Dr. G.? Where does the "overwhelming," "cover" them 



LEXICONS ON BAPTIDZO. 151 

17. Stephanus, 1572. Baptidzo: I plunge or immerse, 
as we immerse things in water for the purpose of wetting 
[washing?] or cleansing them; plunged, i.e. I submerse, 

" out of sight " ? It is such an " overwhelming " as results in causing 
the subject to perish, says Dr. G. Not a word of it. Not one perishes 
here by tabha. It shows they sunk down in the pit, were taken in their 
own net; not one is overwhelmed, not one perishes. Take the other 
passage (Ps. lxix, 3 — misprinted 5 in S.) ; in James it is Psalms lxix, 2, 
" I sink — tabha — in deep mire." "Where is the " overwhelm " or " de- 
stroy " there? Not a word of it. Where he names waters and overflow 
he changes both the verb and noun, the manner of getting into the ele- 
ment and the element. Mire is not water. Dr. G. most shamefully 
slips out, quotes not a word of the real and expressed elements into 
which the tabha sinks them, leaves them out, and runs to other figures, 
other words, and slips them in the place of the suppressed words ! 

But after we exposed (Debate, p. 256) his blunders, and we had left 
Memphis for Kentucky, he then writes (Debate pp. 484-5) that tabha in 
Psalms ix, 15 (English version), the Hebrew word translated baptidzo, 
is from a word that means "to settle down, as Proverbs ii, 18: 'Her 
house sinks down — shubat — into death [el maveth^S In this sense the 
great Schleusner wishes to say, and does say in his lexicon, that baptidzo 
is never used in the New Testament." Here is a change and going 
back on his former dodge completely. Where is now " overwhelm " ? 
Where are the floods ? To sink down, to settle down into a thing, is 
not for the thing to come, as a flood overwhelming it. But we will not 
allow this shameful deception. It is " mire " in one place, a " pit " in 
the other into which tabha sinks them. 

His repeated blunders, adding more still (Debate, p. 484), we need 
not consume time with, where he writes as if it were in the LXX, this 
tabha was rendered baptidzo, instead of Symmachus and the unknown 
version. 

5. Finally, as tabha always means immerse — nothing in all the 
Bible but immerse — and is so defined by every and all Hebrew lexicons 
we ever saw, and yet Dr. Graves says baptidzo is not used, does not 
occur in the New Testament in the sense of tabha, in the places where it 
does mean immerse, it is destructive of their own position. He makes 
Schleusner say directly, " In the sense of immerse baptidzo never occurs 
in the New Testament." So I believe with all my heart. 

The fact that S. refers to overflowing of the Nile as the very ex- 
ample he cites to show baptidzo 's classic use, demonstrates that he could 
not mean to say that tabha was used in that sense, as it never is so used. 
In the rewritten debate (p. 412) he says, backed, he urges, by several 



152 BAPTISM. 

I overwhelm with water; overwhelmed. \\ Baptidzo, to 
cleanse, to wash (Mark vii, 4; Luke xi, 38").* 

18. Gazes. "Baptidzo: To put frequently any thing into 
any thing, and thence upon it; to shed forth any thing; 
to water; to pour upon; to wash. 2. To draw or pump 
water; to put a vessel into a place of water that I may 
pour out. 3. To wash the hands or to wash oneself. 

Baptist doctors, that " hac " refers to tavha ! " Undoubtedly to the last 
tava which is used in the two Psalms referred to in the sense of TO de- 
stroy by the overflowing " / Is it not amazing that sectarianism can go 
so far ? In neither case was the party destroyed that was tavhced. One 
was tabhoed — " sank " in " deep mire." Was that to " overflow " him ? 
In the other he sank in a pit. 

* BaTTTi^o) mergo S. immergo ut quce tingendi aut abluendi gratia aquce 
immergimus. Plut. (6, 633) Sic. Alex. Aphr., pro immersus. He then 
says Buddaeus interprets or renders it " intinctus also," " etiam intinctus," 
but he does not sanction that. Strabo uses it for " mergo, submergo," 
etc.; of others later. || " Bairri^o), abluo, lavo (Marc, vii, 4)," etc. 

Mr. A. Campbell, Drs. Graves and Booth all render the Latin of 
Stephanus and Scapula thus : Mergo, seu immergo, ut quae tigendi, aut 
abluendi gratia aquae immergimus. Mergo, i. e. submergo, abruo, aquce. 
" To immerse or immerge, as things which we immerse for the sake of 
dyeing or washing in water" (Graves, Debate, p. 281). 

Dr. G., p. 282, has Scapula saying under baptidzo u item tingo." It 
is a false reading, copied from an error of Dr. Rice in debate with A. C. 
Dr. G. renders Scapula " to immerse or immerge." "Also to immerse, 
as we immerse things for the sake of dyeing or washing them in water ! " 
No dip. But after we exposed his blunders he at least after that slips 
in dip for " immergo" repeatedly! He leaves out their New Testament 
" abluo, lavo." 

We append the definitions of these lexicons, all copied from the 
originals directly. 

1. Scapula, 1579, ed. 1820, Londoni: "Baptidzo, mergo, seu immergo, 
ut quae tingendi, aut abluendi gratia aquae immergimus. Plut., etc. Item 
mergo, submergo, abruo aqua. Item abluo, lavo (Marc, vii [4] ; Luc. 
xi [38]. 

2. Hedericus, ed. 1825: " Baptidzo, mergo, immergo, aqua abruo ; (2) 
abluo, lavo; (3) baptizo, significato, sacro." The first classic cited for 
" immerse " is Helidorus, a late author ; second one is Plutarch — long 
after Christ. 



LEXICONS ON BAPTIDZO. 153 

4. Among Christians, to baptize." * Here " shed forth " 
(brecho) pour upon [cheo to, pour, epi upon], etc. are given 
by this great authoV, a native Greek. 

3. Schrevellius, ed. 1814: " Baptidzo, mergo, abluo, lavo; Angl. bap- 
tize." 

4. Pasor, xvi, 44: "Baptidzo, immergo, abluo, baptizo (Matt, iii, 11)," 
etc. He shows it applies to sufferings in New Testament also. 

Here we have these few old abridgments of Stephanus and Morell 
showing that Baptidzo — 

1. Never meant dip any where. 

2. Never meant immerse till in late Greek. 

3. Never meant immerse in the New Testament any where where 
the rite occurs. 

4. Had only the force of cleanse, wash, baptize, without regard to 
mode in the New Testament. 

• Gazes was a native of Melias, Thessaly. He was educated at Ven- 
ice, traveled over Europe ; was one of the most learned of Greeks ; was 
a member of the committee that framed and signed the Declaration of 
Grecian Independence. He put forth his lexicon, founded on Schnei- 
der's, with changes and improvements, at Venice, three volumes quarto, 
which the learned Hilarion followed, who, with the approval of his 
archbishop, revised the translation of the Bible by the British and For- 
eign Bible Society. Here is his definition in full: Ba7rn£w: M. oa (/3a7r- 
tu). ~Lvxva /3ovto) tc ueaa elg ri icai evrsvdev ava rov. Bpe^w ri, Trori^u, 
eTuxwu, lovu. 2. 'Avr/lw (3ovto) elg to vepbv ayyelov rt 6ia va £/c6d/Uw. 3. 
flXvvu rag ^eZpac, rj lovo/j.ai. 4. Bannl^c), irapa XpicTiavolg, etc. 

Dr. T. J. Conant, with Gazes and Kouma before him, suppresses all 
their definitions that were in serious debate, thus, as published by Elder 
"Wilkes in Louisville (Debate, pp. 478-9). 

November 18, 1870. 
To Wm. H. Wyechoff, LL.D., Cor. Sec'y of Am. Bible Union : 

My Dear Sir — Your friend asks, "What is the definition of pairriC.cd 
and of j3aTTTto-ua } as given by each of the following lexicographers, viz. 
Hesychius, of the fourth century; Suidas, of the tenth ; Zonaras, of the 
tenth or twelfth ; and Gaze of the seventeenth ? 

Suidas has only baptidzo. He gives no definition of the word, and 
only says it is used with the accusative case. Gaze defines it, ' to dip 
repeatedly ' ; hence, for, to drench, to wash, to bathe." 

Very truly yours, T . J. Conant. 

How can a man act thus? Yet Dr. Graves (Debate, p. 528), after I 
had exposed Dr. Conant, suppresses all the above facts, by pretending 



154 BAPTISM. 

19. Parkhurst.* "Baptidzo: To dip, immerse, or plunge 
in water," etc. He supports immersion, then says, "3. 
To baptize, to immerse in, or wash with, water in token 
of purification from sin," etc. Then, " V. In a figurative 
sense, ' to baptize with the Holy Ghost.' It denotes the 
miraculous effusion [pouring out] of the Holy Ghost upon 
the apostles and other believers, as well on account of the 
abundance of his gifts (for anciently the water was co- 
piously poured on those who were baptized, or they them- 
selves were plunged therein)", etc.f 

20. Walseus: "Indifferently, sprinkling or immer- 
sion." % 

21. Vossius gives immerse, etc., then, "III. To sprin- 
kle." § 

22. Arst gives as a proper New Testament meaning, 
" sprinkling " (perfusionem). 

Vossuis above cites Matthew iii, 11, as a place where 

the baptism was by sprinkling. Alas, when immersion 

requires such a defense ! ^f 

that such meanings as " shed forth," " besprinkle," " pour upon " are 
"figurative and secondary meanings"! 

* We would not quote so ordinary a lexicon as this, but that immer- 
sionists quote him so often, and, like Dr. Graves (Debate, p. 281), sup- 
press the very point in issue. He leaves out all that we cite above. 

t Dr. Graves, A. Campbell, etc., always cited Parkhurst as support- 
ing the Baptist view. 

% Aspersione an immersione (Leigh's Crit. Sacra). 

\ Adspergere (Leigh's Crit. Sacra). 

f I went to the pains and expense to send to New York and Cam- 
bridge both, and secured exact copies of these two great lexicons, as 
they had been so incorrectly quoted on all sides. Dr. Conant professed 
to give the definitions of these authors, and suppressed all the very 
definitions in controversy ! Dr. Graves tries to excuse himself for doing 
the same by shamelessly calling them figurative meanings ! When can 
we settle a question if authors act thus ? 

In Carrollton debate, 1875, rewritten by Dr. Graves in April and 



LEXICONS ON BAPTIDZO. 155 

23. Liddell & Scott (classic), ed. 1850. "Baptidzo: To 
dip repeatedly, dip under ; middle [voice] to bathe. Hence 
to steep, wet. Metaphorically],* soaked in wine; to 
pour upon, drench, over head and ears in debt, over- 
whelmed with questions. II. To dip a vessel to draw 
water. III. To baptize (New Testament)." 

This work being professedly a translation of the great 
work of Passow, though much abridged really, was pre- 
pared especially, like Donnegan, Pickering, and Dunbar, 
for popular school use. But the Baptists raised such a 
roar of disgust over the words " poured upon," that the 
publishers to appease their fury erased them in subse- 
quent editions in England and the United States. Drisler 
has tried to deny this (Carrollton Debate, p. 494-5), but 
the very fact that they also erased " pour [water for wash- 
ing"] out of their edition under the word louo, though 
still retained in the English editions and quoted by 
the Baptist Ingham, on Baptism, p. 445, the work most 
relied on by Dr. Graves in his quotations, shows that 
it was the Baptist pressure that did it. On louo and 
its connection with baptism see the laver argument, 
and our chapter on Wash.f But we must in a note be- 
May, 1876 (Debate, p. 283), he copies Suidas on baptidzo thus, " To im- 
merse, to immerge, to dip, to dip in," after Dr. Conant had told him 
Suidas does not define it at all, and I had so told him. He copies the 
errors of hosts of old citations in this way. It is shameful. 

* Note here, " bathe" and " wet," as well as " steep," are not put as 
metaphorical meanings. Yet Dr. Graves always treats such as meta- 
phorical — e. g. in case of Gazes. 

|Dr. Graves (Carrollton debate) eulogizes this work so much that it 
is proper to add more than its character entitles it to at our hands. No 
one denies its excellence, for it is only an abridged translation of a great 
work, with, of course, a few additions on a few unimportant words, com- 
paratively speaking. Liddell & Scott first define baptidzo as we quote it, 
and boast of their lexicon in a way soon to be quoted. 1. The first def- 
inition is " to dip repeatedly." Is that the primary meaning of baptidzo ? 



156 BAPTISM. 

low give some facts on Liddell & Scott's Lexicon that 
will not only throw light upon its claims on this point, 
but also shed much light on the history of this word and 
philology. If it was the scholarship of Europe and 
America that forced Liddell & Scott to erase "pour 
upon," why all these other changes — at least eleven on 

Do immersionists dip people repeatedly for baptism ? O, but he took 
that out ! Well, then, if he blundered on that point so seriously, may he 
not blunder on others ? 2. He now has that part thus, " To dip in or 
under water (Aristoph. of ships), to sink them" (Polyb. ii, 51, etc.). 
"Well, this is the last edition. Is it better than the first ? If it is only 
" dip in " water, it never means that, nor does he cite a case where it 
does. It is "of ships, to sink them." Do ships that only dip sink? 
Never. If they sink, it is not dip, for to dip is to put in, partly or 
wholly, and immediately withdraw, take out. He cites the same passage 
to support this definition that he cited for the former. 3. He then gave 
'* (2) to draw water." Where does it mean " to draw water " ? He cites 
no case of baptidzo for that. But he erased that also. Did he ? Wrong 
again, then ! Mark that four changes. Well, he had " steep " in that 
edition. 5. O, but he took " steep " out ! Did he ? That makes five 
changes. 6. But he had " wet " as a meaning. But he took that out. 
That makes six changes ! Pretty good, this ; surely he is reliable ! He 
has taken out so much good Baptists will sleep soundly now. As he 
professed to follow Passow's correct method, and " make each article a 
history of the word," surely he will stop now; for if he did this he 
could hardly blunder much. 7. But he had " drench " as a meaning. 
O, but he took that out. Indeed ! Then Baptists can nod refreshingly, 
for this marks eight changes on one little word. But he does not stop. 
8. In the first edition it was " overwhelmed with questions." In the 
second edition that meaning is changed [ ! ! ] to "a boy drowned with 
questions " ! Nine changes, and worse still. " Drowned with ques- 
tions " ! That ought to do. Lexicons always render it, as a rule, either 
" confused " or " overwhelmed with questions." But in the last edition 
he changes that to " seeing him drowned with questions." Ten changes, 
and the same one citation in Plato given to sustain these changes ! Will 
not ten changes do? No! 10. In the first edition it meant (2) "to dip 
a vessel, to draw water." Now he has " to draw wine from bowls in 
cups " (of course by dipping them). In the Greek of this passage it is 
simply that they baptized, i. e. became drunk, out of [etc] the great wine- 
jars," etc. (See the passage examined under classic citations.) There 
is no dip in baptidzo — never. It is due to Liddell & Scott to say they 



LEXICONS ON BAPTIDZO. 157 

one word? Why did not that scholarship force Suicer, 
Swarzius, Stokius, Schneider, Schaetgennius, Schleusner, 
to take out pour, sprinkle, etc., found in all their editions, 
or words equivalent to both? And why allow the still 
later Passow, Rost, Palm, and Pape, late as 1874, to put 
in both "sprinkle" and "pour upon" in lexicons used 
universally by the great scholars of all countries ? 

24. Swarzius.* "Baptidzo: To baptize, immerse, to 
overwhelm, to dip into, to wash by immersing. Some- 
times to sprinkle, to besprinkle, to pour upon," etc. 
apologize for their lexicon by saying, "For the most part we had only 
spare hours to bestow " on the work— " time was limited " (Preface, xvii). 
But they say they " always sought to give the earliest authority for its 
first " meaning. Yet the earliest they give for immerse, i. e. " sink," is 
Polybius, one hundred and fifty or hundred and sixty years before 
Christ. The earliest for " dip " is long after Christ, and a false render- 
ing. They tell us that there are few words that do not change their 
meanings in the downward course of time (2 Preface, xx). Also that a 
word occurs in Homer often only in a metaphorical sense that occurs in 
a literal sense first in Plato. This is correct, and is well said. Baptidzo 
meets us first in metaphorical use in Pindar, and never occurring 
in an extant author in a literal sense till once in Aristotle. All these 
things will be given in due time. But hear L. & S. (Preface, xx) : 
"After the Attic writers, Greek underwent a great change." This change 
he notes as complete in Polybius and all later writers. Note well, then, 

that NO LEXICON IN EXISTENCE GIVES IMMERSE OR DIP AS A MEANING 
OF BAPTIDZO EARLIER THAN Polybius, DiodorUS SiculuS, AND PlU- 

tarch, Polybius being the earliest. Liddell & Scott do not give " im- 
merse" in theirs at all, while Stephanus, Scapula, Pasor, Hedericus, 
do not give dip at all, as either a classic or Bible meaning. Liddell 
& Scott give a catalogue of their authors, that we may know the cen- 
tury and age in which they wrote ; that we may " determine the time 
of a word's first usage, and of its subsequent changes of signification." 
This shows what they mean by primary meaning. Hence dip being sup- 
ported by no early authority in L. & S.'s estimation, it is no " primary " 
meaning. 

* See this lexicon, a large one indeed, and of high standing, quoted 
correctly, and word for word as above, in Ingham's Hand-book on 
Baptism (Baptist work, p. 40); and in Booth's (a Baptist) Pedobaptist 
(in Baptist Library, p. 351-2). 



158 BAPTISM. 

25. E. Leigh's Gritica Sacra (Lexicon) New Testament. 
"Baptidzo : To baptize (occurs thus often), from bapto, to 
wet, to plunge, etc., and primarily may signify any kind 
of washing, or immersion, which may be in water-vessels 
in which we immerse linen. Yet generally and very fre- 
quently it is taken also for any kind of washing, cleans- 
ing, or purification, even of that where is no immer- 
sion, as Matthew iii, 11, 22; Mark vii, 4, etc., etc."* 
He, then, quoting a number of texts in support of this, 
quotes Vossius where it is, "III. To sprinkle or cleanse 
the body of any one sacramentally (Matt, iii, 11)." f 

26. Suicer, whom Dr. Smith thinks the best lexicon 
ever prepared for the interpretation of New Testament 
words, and certainly for its purpose the ablest extant, 
elaborates the word through a series of large folio pages 
in its patristic use. He tells us baptidzo is stronger than 
epipoladzo, to swim lightly, and " less than dunein ;" but as 
Conant and Carson % crush this silly theory of Beza, Vos- 
sius, Suicer, etc., we need not quote it so often in the old 
writers. Then, pursuing the view of the old school, he 
says, as Beza does in substance, " But because any thing 
is accustomed to be mersed or dipped that it may be 
washed and cleansed, hence it occurs as taval [tabhat] in 
the Hebrew, which the Seventy translate (2 Kings v, 14) 

* BaTrri^u, baptizo, scepe . . . a /3a7rrw, tingo, mergo, etc., et primario 
signified istiusmodi lotionem seu immersionem., quae in vasis aquariis sit, 
quibus lintea immergimus ; tamen largius et latius etiam sumitur pro 
quocunque genere ablutionis, prolutionsi seu mundationis, etiam illius, cui 
nulla immersionis species adest; ut Matt, iii, 11, et xx, 22; Marc, vii, 4, 
etc., etc. 

t III. Asperger e seu abluere corpus alicujus sacramentaliter (Matt. 
iii, 11). To cite the number of times that Dr. G-. misquotes Leigh 
would be a waste of paper. Leigh, after the above, cites a number of 
authors on both sides of the question up to his time, and Dr. G-. cites the 
immersionists invariably, as Dr. Leigh ! ! 

X Carson on Baptism, 64, 66 ; Conant, Baptidzein, 104, 156-9. 



LEXICONS ON BAPTIDZO. 159 

by bantidzo, and is taken for rachats, which is to wash ; 
similarly in Greek Ho baptidzein,' by a metalepsis is used 
for the same [lavare, to wash], as Judith xii, 8 (?) [7] ; Si- 
rach xxxiv, 30 ; Luke xi, 38." He then shows the fathers 
use it for immerse also in vast numbers of cases after the 
fourth century. Then " the thing signified is represented 
by immersion or sprinkling." * 

27. Schneider, the next best classic lexicon issued, 
Leibzig, 1819. Baptidzo, from bapto : I dip under ; thence 
as brecko [i. e. moisten, shed forth, sprinkle.] Also meta- 
phorically to be thoroughly drunk, overwhelm with debts, 
etc. [classics given] ; ... to wash," etc. 

28. Wolfius: "This word [baptidzo, Luke xi, 38] 
means washing done by sprinkling." f 

29. Passow. The great Passow, the master critic of 
all classic lexicons, to whom Lid dell & Scott, Pickering, 
and all others now profess to look for aid, we reserve as 
the last Greek lexicon quoted, next to the Thesaurus of 
Stephens the largest — three large volumes, the first con- 
taining eighteen hundred and eighty-four double-column 
pages, fine print — thus deposes : " Baptidzo, from bapto : 
1. Oft and repeatedly to immerse, submerse, with eis 
[into] and pros ti, in respect to any thing. . . Thence to 
moisten, to wet, sprinkle, hoi bebaptismenoi, translate, 
made drunk, vino madidi [Latin, soaked with wine]. 
Generally to besprinkle, to pour upon, to overwhelm, to 
burden with taxes, with debts (oppress), to confuse with 

* Thesaurus Eccles. E. Pat. Graocis, 2 vols., folio, 1728 — Res signifi- 
cata, quce per immersionem aut aspersionem adumbratur. 

t Ed. 1841, p. 489, vol. 1. — Bairrifa (flair™), oft u. wiederhalt ein- 
tauchen, undertauchen. E/f u. npog ti Plut. auch evrivi dah. Bcnetzen, 
anfeuchten, begiessen . . . betrunken, vino madidi, iiber, iibcrgiessen, 
uberschutten, uberhauffen, mit Abgabcn, mit schulden uberladen mit 
fragen uberschuttet (2 Schopfen, 3 taufen, med.), sich taufen lossen; 
auch baden, waschen. 



160 BAPTISM. 

questions. 2. Pump water. 3. Baptize, suffer oneself to 
be baptized, also to bathe, to wash."* 

30. Host and Palm, in three volumes, the latest save 
Pape. "Baptidzo: fOft and repeatedly to immerse, to sub- 
merse. ... To moisten, to wet, to sprinkle, made drunk, 
vino madidi. Generally to besprinkle, to pour upon,! to 
overwhelm, to burden with taxes, with debts, to oppress. 
(2) Draw [or pump] water. (3) To baptize, to suffer one- 
self to be baptized; also to bathe, to wash." We close this 
illustrious list with the latest and distinguished lexicogra- 
pher, Prof. W. Pape, of Berlin, 1874, in three volumes. 

31. Pape. " Baptidzo :§ To immerse, to submerse, 
Plut. [extracts and renderings given to sustain this all 
from late Greek] ; to moisten [or wet], to besprinkle [or 
pour upon, to besprinkle^] ; [hoi bebaptismenoi] those 
drunk, Plato. To overwhelm with debts, Plutarch." 

*Verbum hoc lationem inferat, aspersione. factam. Conf. . . . Dey- 
lingii — Observat. Sacr. Wolfii Philol. et Crit., editio tertia, i, p. 658. 
A semi-lexicon and expositor of vast learning. 

t German same as in Passow, last quoted, which see. Liinemann's 
Lat. Deut. Hand-worterbuch, 1831, defines per/undo, begiessen, oder be- 
netzen. Fundo [pour] by giessen oder ausgiessen, etc. ; auch schutten, etc. 

J Ingham, Baptist, in his Hand-book on Baptism, London, recently 
issued, says, page 94, " Thus Professor Kost, in his German Greek-Lex- 
icon, revised with the assistance of a native Greek, . . . under the 
words wash, wet, pour, and the like [has] waschen, benetzen, giessen, be- 
giessen . . . (Chris. Kev. vol. iii, p. 97.)" So here they agree th&t gies- 
sen, begiessen is used for "pour," not " pour over," as Dr. Graves's friend 
Toy rendered it to conceal the truth, and by Kost in the above lexicon. 

QBcnrTlfa. 1. Eintauchen, undertauchen ; Plat., Qusest. Nat. 10; 
IIAoia schifFe, etc. (Pol. viii, 8, etc.), scheint (3a7rri^erai er wird auf dem 
Meer herumgetrieben — anfeuchten, begiessen. 01 (3e6a7rrcaofievot, die 
betrunkenen Plat, mit schulden iiberladen Plut. da ich den knaben schon 
gantz tzeigedeckt sot, durch die Sophisterein des Gegners, Plat. 2. 
E/c mdcjv (Schoffen, Plut. iii, N. T. u. K. S.), taufen. Med. sich taufen 
lassen, j3dTrricfia die Taufe, N. T. 

^f Like the Latin perf under e " begeisgen " means both to pour upon 
and to besprinkle — perfuse. See the word in Passow, Kost, and Palm. 



LEXICONS ON BAPTIDZO. 161 

2. " To draw water " [out of any thing], etc. 

3. " In the New Testament and ecclesiastical historians, 
to baptize. Middle voice, to suffer oneself to be baptized. 
Baptisma, the baptism, in New Testament." 

In the light of these facts what are we to think of the 
cry that no lexicon, ancient or modern, ever gave sprinkle 
or pour as a meaning of bapto or baptidzo f Notice well — 

1. That every one of these lexicons, save two, and the 
great authors among the fathers who speak lexicograph- 
ically, out of the thirty- one, give either sprinkle or pour or 
(Schneider and Robinson) words equivalent to both, as 
meanings and uses of baptidzo. The two exceptions are 
Sophocles, who gives " perform ablution, to bathe, bathed 
in tears," where it is " baptize with tears " — surely not im- 
mersion; and Stephanus, who never gives dip as a mean- 
ing at all, who never gives immerse as a New Testament 
meaning, but expressly gives the New Testament meaning 
thus: "Abluo, lavo" — only that, "to cleanse, to wash." 
Whenever lavo is modal it is "besprinkle," and every 
Latin lexicon we ever saw gives that as a prominent mean- 
ing. Baptize "with tears" is certainly affusion. Hence, 
thus — 

2. Every one of the thirty-one authorities sustain affu- 
sion as baptism. 

3. Scapula, Pasor, Schrevellius,* Hedericus, Morell, 
etc., etc., mere abridgments of Stephanus, all give "abluo, 
lavo," from Stephanus, as the only meanings it has as an 
ordinance in the New Testament, not one giving dip or 
immerse as a New Testament meaning. Abluo is "to 
cleanse" — no special mode. Lavo is to wash, bathe, be- 
sprinkle — never dip or immerse. If our opponents insist 

• Schrevellius giving simply immergo for classic usage. Baptize and 
£avo=wash, bathe, besprinkle, as its N. T. meaning. 

14 



162 BAPTISM. 

on the classic lexicons as proper authorities here they 
must abide their decision, that in the New Testament bap- 
tidzo is never modal save when it is by sprinkling — never 
dip, never immerse. 

4. Not a lexicon on earth gives abluo, lavo as a classic 
meaning of baptidzo. 

5. If six men testify in court that A killed B, using a 
generic or general term, and twenty-one good witnesses 
testify that A killed B, shooting him through the head, 
will not all say there is no discrepancy, that what the six 
meant by kill the twenty-one mean by their terms? And 
in view of the fact that kill embraces shoot as one of its 
modes of destroying; that shooting effects killing; that in 
that case they mean to agree with the twenty -one? So 
these lexicons, Scapula, Stephanus, Pasor, Schrevellius, 
Hedericus and many more mean by " abluo, lavo," what 
these others do by sprinkle, pour, etc., etc. Hence, 

6. The great school of lexicography is unanimously 
with us on this question. 

7. If Blackstone, Coke, Kent, Greenleaf, Chitty, etc. 
all agree on a point of law, sustained by the Pandects 
and Cicero; if Johnson, Walker, Richardson, Worcester, 
and Webster all substantially agree in the meaning of a 
word, would not that end controversy on that point? We 
would hang, convict a president, go to war, all on such 
testimony, if the case depended only on whether it were 
so or not, and such testimony were adduced that it was so. 
Note again — 

8. Those lexicons were all made either, first, by im- 
mersionists (though they dipped their infants) when im- 
mersion was the law of the land, and the only popular 
mode — Buddseus, 1529; Stephanus, 1572; or, second, by 
those who merely abridged the work of Stephens, copying 



LEXICONS ON BAPTIDZO. 163 

him word for word generally throughout, but leaving off 
references that so fill up the space — Scapula, Pasor, He- 
dericus, Schrevellius,* etc., etc. ; or, third, by those who 
abridged and diluted in translating Stephens's Latin into 
English liberally — Donnegan, Dunbar, Pickering, etc.; or, 
fourth, by those who still felt their influence and did not 
wholly start out scientifically — Schneider, Passow, Kouraa, 
Gazes, etc. — yet made a great advance. 

9. Not one shows that dip or immerse was the primary 
meaning. They do not treat of primaries, but aim at pop- 
ular, current meanings. The very fact that nearly all their 
citations of proof-texts are from the later classic Greek, 
and not one cites the earliest nor takes note of it on 
either bapto or baptidzo in order, nor on the latter at all, 
demonstrates that point. Had they been treating of pri- 
mary meanings common decency would have compelled 
them to take the primal occurrences of baptidzo, and that 
first, whereas not one of them cites the earliest cases of it 
at all. 

10. That this was so, further appears from their entire 
want of harmony in defining bapto and baptidzo. Not one 
of the great body of old classic lexicons gives dip as a 
meaning of baptidzo — not one, including Stephanus, 
Scapula, Hedericus, Pasor, Schrevellius, Robertson, 
nor Ewing, Wahl, Schaetgennius, Arst, Morell, and 
many others. But Carson says it means nothing but dip. 
Of all the above not one gives dip. Arst gives " over- 
whelm" first; Schrevellius and others give baptize first; 
Ewing gives "cover" first — a meaning it never has. 
Schleusner gives definitions wholly different in his two 
great lexicons; the one for the Greek of the old Testa- 

* A. Campbell tells us originally Schrevellius had only mergo, gink, 
and lavo. 



164 BAPTISM. 

ment, the other for that of the New. They may be said 
to define baptidzo radically different — being wholly unlike. 
Wahl, a learned contemporary of Schleusner defines it in 
his first edition, first, lavo, wash, then in brackets, classic 
use, demerse, submerse; then, "second (New Testament 
use), immerse." In a second edition the same year, 1829, 
he reverses that, adds "overwhelm" "imbue" takes out 
" demerse, submerse," adds its New Testament use as equiv- 
alent to the vfario (nipto) of New Testament (Mark vii, 3, 
e. g.). But in 1831, only two years later, he brings out an 
edition, changes it again, takes out "immerse" from one 
place of New Testament usage, heading a list of refer- 
ences, and puts in its place sprinkle (perfundo). He is 
the strongest immersionist of all New Testament lexicog- 
raphers. Yet how can we rely on such changes as these ? 
If scientific accuracy and philological laws were his guide 
this could not be. Liddell & Scott defines it " dip repeat- 
edly," "wet, moisten, pour upon," etc. Under Baptist 
pressure they erase wet or "moisten, pour upon" from 
later editions. Baptists feel delighted at this. Now they 
have a lexicon that suits them. What a shout they raised ! 
They declare, then, that no definition is reliable that is not 
supported by one or more references to Greek writers 
where it has the meaning given. Alas for that, for the 
first definition by Liddell & Scott can not be supported 
by a single citation in the whole republic of letters. It 
no where means "to dip repeatedly."* Yet this is his 
first definition. Through a number of editions there it 
has stood, a living falsehood stalking down through the 
years to tell what blunders can be committed where no 
scientific method is adopted on the word. They are all 
equally wild on bapto, equally antagonistic, untrue as to 
* See new Graves-Ditzler Debate, p. 527, 401-2. 



LEXICONS ON BAPTIDZO. 165 

method. Clearly and evidently the lexicons never aimed 
at tracing primitive, but current meanings, as exhibited 
especially in later writers. Nay, the fact that Wahl, 
Schleusner, Liddell & Scott, Swarzius, etc., etc. do all 
begin with the later Greek writers, not a lexicon in the 
world beginning with the earlier — not to say earliest, as 
they all ought — shows the immense influence Buddseus, 
Stephanus, and Robert Constantine exerted on our lex- 
icography through their ignorance of earlier writers. 

11. To the thoughtful scholar it is a most important 
matter that no lexicon has yet given Aristotle's use of 
baptidzo, the first literal use of it known, nor that of the 
Greeks before Plato. It shows that where Stephanus 
and Buddseus stopped on that word their successors in the 
lexical work tarried. 

It is a favorite dodge of immersionists that wash, 
cleanse (lavo, abluo), as well as moisten, sprinkle, pour, are 
metaphorical meanings of baptidzo; so meant by the lexi- 
cons. To this we reply — 

(1) By the whole body of the old lexicons, Buddseus, 
Stephanus, Scapula, Hedericus, Pasor, Schrevellius, Mo- 
rell, etc., lavo, abluo (wash, cleanse) were the only New 
Testament definitions given. Hence were literal, real 
meanings. Whether held as derived meanings or not — 
and they did so hold — derived meanings, all others agree, 
are as literal and real as the primary meanings, the latter 
often becoming actually obsolete. Derived meanings are 
not to be confounded with metaphorical uses of meanings. 

(2) The "sprinkle" and "pour upon" are as literal 
meanings as the immerse in those lexicons, so meant by 
them. As stated, not one of them was discussing prima- 
ries, and the fact that they all date immerse as a late 
meaning shows that clearly enough. 



166 BAPTISM. 

12. By the rule Dr. Graves lays down since these 
papers were prepared, wash, cleanse, sprinkle, pour, as the 
modes of the wash, cleanse, are the primary meanings of 
baptidzo. Not only so, but by his rule they are the only 
meanings. Debate, p. 322, Dr. Graves says, " As deriva- 
tives sometimes lose the last shade of the signification of 
their primitive or root-origin — as tingo once primarily 
meant to dip, second, to dye, now it has lost its first, and 
its secondary has become its primary — we are compelled 
to go to standard Latin authors and learn the signification 
they attach to it." 

By this rule, along with his other, that the first mean- 
ing attached by lexicons (Debate, p. 253) is the primary 
and current meaning, wash, cleanse, effected by sprinkle, 
pour, is the only New Testament meaning of baptidzo; for 
nine tenths of all the lexicons give these as the first and 
only New Testament meanings. We pass by the absurd- 
ities of the above as well as its untrue assertion on tingo, 
as it is fully treated elsewhere. 

13. Our position harmonizes all the facts and all the 
meanings of baptidzo ; is in perfect harmony with the laws 
of language, the principles of philology in all languages, 
whether Semitic or Aryan (Indo-European), and hence 
can not be wrong. 

14. We will see that the lexicography of Hebrew and 
all the languages of the earliest versions will overwhelm- 
ingly support affusion as the apostolic mode of baptism. 
We reserve them till we treat of classic use. 

15. Hence we see the force of Carson's noted words, 
" My position is, that it [baptidzo] always signifies to dip ; 
never expressing any thing but mode. Now, as I have 
all the lexicographers and commentators against me in 
this opinion, it will be necessary to say a word or two 



LEXICONS ON BAPTIDZO. 167 

with respect to the authority of lexicons. Many may be 
startled at the idea of refusing to submit to the unani- 
mous authority of lexicons as an instance of the boldest 
skepticism" (pp. 55, 56). Yes; we should think so. He 
then urges that lexicons " are not an ultimate authority." 
"Actual inspection" of the places where it occurs must 
settle its meaning. This is true; but had not they done 
this as well as Dr. C. 



168 



CHAPTER XIV. 

PHILOLOGY. 

There is something, as already shown, inhering in the 
Bible use of baptidzo which purify, wash, sprinkle, immerse, 
dip, separately or all combined, can not represent. Had 
purify or sanctify merely been meant, kaihairo, katharidzo, 
hagiadzo would have been used. Had wash merely been 
meant, louo, nipto, pluno, apoJcludzo would have been used. 
Had immersion been meant, hataduo y buthidzo, pontidzo, 
katapontidzOj enduo would have been used. Had sprinkle 
merely been meant, raino, rantidzo, katapasso, or proscheo, 
etc. would have been used. No other word than baptidzo 
itself does or can represent the ordinance in its full and 
true import. No other word perfectly translates it as it 
habitually occurs in the New Testament. Wash, far more 
properly sprinkle, more perfectly represents it in Mark 
vii, 4, and Luke xi, 38, because it is not there used as a 
heaven-sanctioned rite, and it was a mere sprinkling of 
water for traditional baptism. Immerse, dip, plunge, 
sprinkle, pour are but actions, not implying necessarily 
any religious idea or fact, nor the unity, power, or effect 
of religious truth; nay, not the element itself — water. 
When, therefore, we show that primarily baptidzo has this 
or derivatively another meaning, as a word applied to ex- 
press an action, it does not follow that either of these 
meanings will fairly represent it when applied to a rite. 
Such a thing never occurs as to any word. The original 



PHILOLOGY. 169 

Hebrew for circumcise, paschal feast, etc. are illustra- 
tions. 

People are immersed, dipped, plunged in oil, in blood, 
in mud, in filth, in trouble. These words imply merely 
actions or modes of doing, and are but parts of the whole 
accomplished. As sprinkle, pour upon, dip, immerse, 
plunge are but actions by which some fact may be accom- 
plished, and hence are but a part of the thing done or fact 
accomplished, they are only a part thereof and can not be 
equivalent to the whole. 

Let us now examine the philological foundation of all 
the assumptions of immersionists. It assumes — 

1. That immersion is a primary idea, which is impossi- 
ble and absurd. 

2. That immersion and dip are exactly the same. 

3. That immersion is the primary meaning of baptidzo 
and its root, bapto, without a word of proof offered. 

4. That wash, cleanse, is a philological effect of immer- 
sion, which will be found to be against all the facts and 
science of language, and utterly unhistoric besides. 

Immersion is itself a compound in form and meaning 
and a derivative in thought. The English of immerse is 
"sink in."* 

1. The idea of sinking in is not a primary. To sink in 
implies pressure and a yielding element. Hence it is not 
a primary or simple idea. In different languages immer- 
sion is often a derivative from press, burden, overburden, 
and it always implies that. Whatever falls upon, pours 
upon, rolls upon, presses down, and if the objects receiving 
such elements are in a condition to sink, that ensues of 
course. Whatever may fall or pour upon an object, there- 

* In, put " im " for euphony, and mergo, to sink. This fact, meaning 
" sink in," will be duly elaborated and proved. A. Campbell, Conant, 
Wilkes, Graves, all support it. 

15 



170 BAPTISM. 

fore, is liable to immerse it. Hence the hosts of words we 
shall find meaning sprinkle, pour, etc. that come to mean 
immerse. 

2. Mersion, immersion, is so far from implying wash- 
ing, cleansing, as a sequence, that it does not involve or 
imply any particular element, and as often applies to filth, 
to mud, etc. as to any other element. 

3. Indeed immersion constantly occurs in Latin, in 
Greek, Hebrew, Syriac, Persic, Arabic, German, and in 
English, etc. etc., where just the reverse of wash, cleanse, 
is to be found. Persons and things are immersed in mud, 
in filth, in blood, in dye, in vats, in stenchy pools, in slime. 
Hence in many languages it means to contaminate, defile, 
make filthy. Gesenius, Caste! 1, and Schindler thus define 
tama.* 

4. In no language of which we have any knowledge 
does any word that properly and primarily implies mer- 
sion, dipping — that is, used generally and properly for 
mersion, immersion, or dipping — mean to wash, cleanse, 
or purify. In no lexicon, and in no writer in Latin, 
Greek, Hebrew, Syriac, Arabic, Persic, iEthiopic, Chaldee, 
Italian, Spanish, German, or Portuguese, did we ever find 
a passage where immerse, dip, or plunge meant to wash or 
cleanse or purify. No lexicon we ever saw defines any 
word that properly and strictly meant immerse, dip, or 
plunge by to wash or cleanse or purify. The Hebrew 
tabha, immerse, f the Greek enduo, kataduo, pontidzo, bu- 

#X£tt } tama, Arabic, to immerse, "defile, to contaminate" (Ge- 
senius). "The primary idea is that of immersing" (G-esenius). Yet 
"unclean, defiled, polluted" (Lev. xv, 32; xxi, 4; Hos. ix, 4). 

t ^sO. tabha ; Hottinger, immersus ; Gesenius, immersit ; Castell, im- 
mersus ; Schindler, immersus ; so Buxtorf, etc. Not one begins tabhal 
with immerse. "^, mersit, submersus fuit, demersus fuit, im, and sub- 
mersus aqua. Castell, Freytag, Schindler. 



PHILOLOGY. 171 

thidzo, katapontidzo, immerse, dupto, Jcolumbao, to dip,* 
often occur, and are rendered in our Bible by the English 
of immerse — " to sink," e. g. Exodus xv, 5, 10 ; Psalms 
cxxiv, 4; lxix, 2, 15; liv, 9; Ecclesiastes x, 12; Jeremiah 
ii, 2 ; Matthew xviii, 6 ; xiv, 30 ; 1 Timothy vi, 9 ; Luke v, 
7 ; 2 Maccabees (Apoc.) xii, 4. 



PRINCIPLES OF PHILOLOGY. 

The following words in Arabic definitely mean to im- 
merse, never sprinkle, rain, or pour: 1, gamasa; 2, ga- 
mara; S,amasa; 4,dala;5,atta(w); 6,gara; 7,gautsa, 
gutsj — seven words all meaning repeatedly to immerse; 
most of them mean to immerse in water. Yet not one of 
them ever means to wash. Not one of them ever means 
to intoxicate, to overflow, overwhelm, inundate, intox- 
icate, make drunk, moisten, wet, rain — never have those 
meanings that so perfectly inhere in bapto or baptidzo — 
never mean stain, dye, color. Notice by the Latin below 
that often immerse comes from depress, oppress, and words 
that mean to immerse or dip never mean to wash. etc. 
only where sprinkle, pour, moisten, etc. are the primary 
meanings, and immerse a derived meaning. The iEthi- 
opic has a word (maab) for immerse; but it never means 
wash, cleanse, wet, intoxicate, etc. The Persic has a word 

* Avittu, tauchen, undertauchen ; Passow, Host, Palm, Pope, Pape — 
dupto, undertauchen, kephalas eis hudor. 

t Arab. CEn, demersit eum in aquam, demersit semet in aquam, mer- 
gantur, etc. "1)33 (gamara), mersit, submersus fuit, demersus fuit, im-, 
submersus aqua; ^Nl (Heb. }V"1), depressit immersit ve in aqua ; JOJ?, atta, 
oppressit, demersit, depresserunt . . . merserunt, vii demersus in aquam 
fuit, semet immersit, compressio ; IIP, Arab, gara, descendit, depressus 
fuit, demersus fuit (three times repeated), depressus; yi5?, Arab, gautsa, 
se demersit sub aquam, submersit. Castell, Schindler, Freytag. 



172 BAPTISM. 

ghuta, to immerse in water ; * yet it never means to wash, 
cleanse, etc. The Hebrew words for immerse properlv 
and strictly mean primarily to impress, depress, then im- 
merse. Thus tabha,-\ which in the Bible always means im- 
merse, kaphash,X to depress, impress, immerse ; shaqah,§ to 
submerse, depress into the deep, compress, demerse. The 
German dip, dip under, immerse, ^[ no more mean to 
wash, to cleanse, than does our dip, sink. First, it is re- 
markable too from the standpoint of immersionists that 
not one of all these words for immerse is ever used in all 
the ancient versions translated from the original for bap- 
tize. It is well to notice, second, that dip never comes 
from immerse in all these words; third, that all words 
that properly and certainly mean to immerse, submerse, 
not only never mean dip, but are not defined by tingo, in- 
tingo as is tabhal and bapto. They are never used by any 
lexicon to define tabha, immerse. In Arabic dahaha means 
"to depress or immerse with violence" or force, while 
y achat means " to demerse, and make filthy." 

Is it not astonishing that men of learning should base 
their main arguments on supposed laws of language as- 
sumed to be fundamental, being the foundation on which 
all their superstructure rests, so absolutely vain and a pure 
delusion? They assume that wash, cleanse, is the effect of 
immersion, a philological effect based on fact, and proceed 
from that standpoint to make their arguments, when not 
an instance has ever been adduced to vindicate the bold 

* Maab, maba ; iEthiopic, submersit (Castell); Ghuta, Persic, in 
aquam immergere, demersio in aquam (Castell). 

t^^P, tabha, figi, infigi, immergi demergi (Buxtorf, Castell). 

t 1 ^^?, kaphash, depressit . . . immersit (Castell). 

§^il^, submersus, in profundum depressus, compressus est, demersit 
(Castell). 

|| Tauchen, undertauchen, sinJcen. 



PHILOLOGY. 173 

assumption, and not a fact in the whole babbling earth can 
be adduced to support it. Nay, so far from it being sup- 
ported, there is every reason why the reverse should be 
true, since immersion is so far from philologically imply- 
ing washing that there is no necessary connection between 
the two ideas, immersion applying as readily to soiling, 
staining, defiling, and corrupting elements as purifying 
ones. Indeed Dr. Conant and Prof. Mell, of Georgia, tell 
us truly that bapto and baptidzo take as the elements into 
which they "put" the subject, " honey, wax, . . . gall, 
oil, vinegar, soup, moist earth, broth, fat, filth" (Mell, 
pp. 13, 14, on Baptism, replying to Dr. Summers). Here 
every element named defiles, unless the vinegar be ex- 
cepted. Surely, as these are the elements, save water, into 
which baptidzo (for it takes them all; bapto takes "dirt;" 
both take "the human body," and often "blood") intro- 
duces its subjects when meaning to immerse, it argues 
poorly for wash as a consequent meaning. Note well, in 
not a*n author or place where baptidzo does mean to im- 
merse does it ever mean to wash, cleanse, or purify. 

PHILOLOGY, OR SCIENCE OF LANGUAGE. 

While on the one hand immerse and dip, i. e. the proper 
words for dip or immerse, never mean to wash, cleanse, 
it will be found that in various ancient languages, espe- 
cially in all those in which the Bible was originally writ- 
ten and its earliest versions made, the words for wash, both 
as to the body and the hands and face, the proper words 
for wash, cleanse, never mean to dip, immerse, but do in 
most cases radically mean — some of them, to sprinkle, 
others to moisten where it is by falling rain, dew, or slight 
aspersion of liquid ; or as in other cases, words are used 



174 BAPTISM. 

meaning to pour, shed forth, drop, as of water; or as in 
others still they mean wash, pour, sprinkle, as louo, nipto. 
In Hebrew we have rachats, wash, pour; kabas, wash; 
while motor, to rain, wet with rain, sprinkle,* is rendered 
by nipto, to wash, and in Arabic is "to sprinkle, pour, 
rain, wet," yet to wash, to cleanse.f In Arabic gasala is 
to wash, sprinkle, perfuse ; never dip, immerse. It is the 
word most constantly used for wash. In German waschen, 
baden, wash, bathe; in Latin lavo, abluo; their corresponding 
words in French, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese never mean 
dip or immerse. On nipto, pluno (from pluo, to moisten, 
wet, rain), | to wash, sprinkle, louo, wash, pour, sprinkle,§ 
see the fuller facts in the separate chapter on Wash. In 
JEthiopic r achats, wash, means primarily to sweat, per- 
spire, and then in Arabic next it means to wash, to cleanse, 
because perspiring profusely cleanses. We see wash de- 
rived from pour, rain, sprinkle, sweat, moisten — never 
from immerse. 

The English Liddell & Scott's Greek Lexicon gives 
under " louo, wash, pour [water for washing"]. Many other 
authorities support the same, none against. See chapter 
on Wash. 

There is another word we may notice in Greek that 
means to wash as well as to wet, moisten, rendered "wet- 
ted " by Dr. Conant and Elder Wilkes (Louisville Debate, 
p. 619). It is used by Clemens Alexandrinus, a.d. 190, 
and Theophylact as denning baptidzo as to mode. It 

* Pluvid rigatus, depluit, pluviam demisit. Arabic, fluit, perfudit, 
perfusus, fluit, etc. 

t Lavando urgeni et mundando (Castell, 2043). Other words in He- 
brew, etc. of affusion meaning to wash, cleanse, etc. will be given in 
abundance soon. 

X Benetzen, anfeuchten. Latin, pluo v. fluo. Passow, Eost, Palm, 
Pape. 

§ Galen, Stephanus, Hippocrates. 



PHILOLOGY. 175 

means to wash. It is compounded of hugros, liquid, water, 
same as hudor, water, and raino, to sprinkle. Here the 
word raino, the root of rantidzo, to sprinkle, comes to 
apply to washing, as well as other words of like primary 
force. 

The Hebrew word wash (rachats, louo, nipto, etc. in 
Greek) primarily means "to bubble up, to flow, pour out, 
to drip." It is translated pour (cheo) in the Septuagint 
also. For more details on wash we refer to a future chap- 
ter in this work on Wash. See the index. We see that 
wash is not derivable from immerse; it is from sprinkle 
and pour. 



176 



CHAPTER XV. 

Philology, or Science of Language. 

Having shown now beyond question that immerse is 
not the primary of wash, or purify, or cleanse — that wash 
does not and can not philologically be derived from im- 
merse, and that it is derived constantly from words that 
both primarily and constantly mean to sprinkle, to pour, 
and to wet or moisten simply, where words are used 
mostly applicable to water (kludzo, hugros, hudor with 
raino, sprinkle) — we proceed to show a number of words 
that primarily mean to sprinkle, in some cases ; to pour in 
others; to moisten, wet, in others, where it is by affusion, 
that derivatively come to mean to dip, to overflow, over- 
whelm, drown, immerse, showing that immerse is philolog- 
ically derived from affusion, affusion never from immerse. 

Immersionists are settled in nothing more securely to 
their own satisfaction than in this : If a word means to 
sprinkle or pour it never can mean, or come to mean, to 
immerse or dip. Hence as pedobaptists acknowledge that 
baptidzo in classic Greek often means to immerse as well 
as to whelm, etc., why, it can never include any other 
mode or action than immerse. 

1. Dr. Eraser (Baptism, p. 70): "It must remain an 
impossibility to reconcile such opposite modes of applica- 
tion as dipping and sprinkling." 

2. Prof. Wilson speaks of "The absurdity of attach- 
ing opposite meanings to the same term." "The false 



PHILOLOGY, OR SCIENCE OF LANGUAGE. 177 

principle that the verb denotes the two distinct acts of 
sprinkling and bathing" (184, 185). 

3. R. Ingham (Hand-book on Chris. Baptism, Lon- 
don, 1865, pp. 184, 185) : " We deny not that a copious 
sprinkling may approximate to pouring; yea, that a 
sprinkling might be so abundant that one person would 
call it pouring and another would call it sprinkling. 
Nor do we deny that in any language there is a word 
which may not sometimes be used in the sense of pour- 
ing and sometimes in the sense of sprinkling. Our belief 
is that in no cultivated language under heaven does one 
word mean definitely to immerse and also to pour and to 
sprinkle. . . . Between immersion and either of the other 
two there is an impassable gulf. . . . The explicit testi- 
mony of lexicons that baptizo signifies to immerse, we 
regard as evidence that it does not signify to pour or to 
sprinkle. . . . We hesitate not to appeal to any man to 
find a word which definitely signifies to immerse in the 
English, or Latin, or Greek, or Hebrew language, and 
which also signifies to pour and to sprinkle. We might 
now leave this subject," etc. (109). 

Dr. Fuller : " If it means to immerse then it does not 
mean to sprinkle or to pour." " Indeed if it means im- 
merse it can not mean to sprinkle or pour" (pp. 15, 25). 

4. Hinton and Pres't Shannon: "Now if baptism does 
indeed mean immerse, as all admit, it must (to say the 
very least) be doubtful whether it can also mean to 
sprinkle or to pour. Immerse, sprinkle, and pour are 
three distinct ideas, expressed by different words in all 
languages" (H. quoting S., p. 44). 

5. Dr. Carson (Baptism, p. 52) : " But if the word 
originally signifies to pour or to sprinkle, no process can 
be supposed by which it would come to denote to dye. 



178 BAPTISM. 

.... The two meanings can have no consanguinity." 
" 7. I will state another canon equally self-evident, and 
equally fatal to the doctrine of Mr. Ewing and all our 
opponents. A word that applies to two modes can desig- 
nate neither. . . . Without reference, then, to the practice 
of the language, on the authority of self-evident truth, I 
assert that bapto can not signify both to dip and pour or 
sprinkle. I assert that in no language under heaven 
can one word designate two modes. Now, we have the 
confession of our opponents themselves that baptizo sig- 
nifies to dip. If so, it can not also signify to pour or 
sprinkle" (p. 90). 

6. A. Campbell (Chris. Baptism, pp. 147-149): "The 
force of this argument recognizes only a concession which 
no man can refuse, namely, that baptizo once signifies to 
dip or immerse. This point conceded, and, according to 
the law in such cases, it must always signify to dip." " If, 
then, baptizo once means to dip, it never can mean sprin- 
kle, pour, or purify, unless these actions are identically 
the same." 

Yet Carson admits bapto is applied to sprinklings. 

CAN A WORD MEAN TO DIP AND TO SPRINKLE? 

To strengthen this they quote Leviticus xiv, 6-8, 15, 
16, where the priest pours (yatsak) [yjw, cheo~\, dips (taval) 
bapto, and sprinkles \_nazah, pabm, raino\ the blood. Now, 
says the immersionist, this shows " a clear distinction made 
in English and Greek betwixt dipping, pouring, and 
sprinkling." Ingham, p. 109; see Louisville Debate also, 
p. 540; Mell, pp. 10, 11. This is regarded as a Gibralter 
of immersion power. Let us see how readily it crumbles 
before the batteries of truth. 



PHILOLOGY, OR SCIENCE OF LANGUAGE. 179 

1. If these be the invariable words for these specific 
actions it utterly annihilates our opponents and leaves us 
untouched ; for the word dip in the corresponding Greek 
is not baptidzo but bapto, which is only the root of the 
word, and they say it has nothing to do with the ordi- 
nance. 

2. It is only a partial dip and does not imply submer- 
gence. They demand a complete covering of the subject. 

3. As dip occurs fifteen times in the Old Testament 
and several times in the New, why is bapto used every 
time in the Greek where any dip occurs in reality in the 
original? for all ancient versions render 2 Kings v, 14, by 
wash, not by dip, i. e. lavo, seeho, waschen, etc. 

4. Neither dip, immerse, sprinkle, nor pour as mere 
actions can represent baptidzo in the religious sense it has 
in the Bible. In the above passages the dip and pour are 
mere subordinate actions, not words of ordinance. Puri- 
fication was the ordinance ; these actions were to aid in 
accomplishing it; hence mere words of action alone. 

5. Only one of these words is here meant to be modal, 
that is the word sprinkle, nor is it necessarily so. The 
mode was not involved in the pour and dip. The one 
was to put the element in the left hand — the log of oil. 
The bird, only in part (see Jamieson, in loc), cedar, hys- 
sop, and scarlet wool were to be baptized with (taval) the 
blood of the slain bird, and mode was not involved, and 
its head and wings were not even wet with the element, 
though the bird was baptized. 

6. The word yatsak (J^.) pour, is translated sprinkle 
repeatedly in the various Greek, Latin, and English ver- 
sions, while the word nazah, sprinkle, is rendered wet, 
moisten, overflow . . by the highest authorities. 

7. Yet, our opponents assume that each of these words 



180 BAPTISM. 

has a single, definite, specifically-settled meaning in the 
Bible, never departing therefrom, albeit they demand nazah, 
sprinkle, shall be held to mean " astonish" in Isaiah Hi, 15, 
"So shall he sprinkle many nations," not allowing it to 
refer to the commission, " baptize " all nations. They say 
cheo being used in Greek for pour, raino for sprinkle, 
bapto for dip [Hebrew yatsak, nazah, tabal], these words 
can mean nothing else, because here set in such contrast. 
Yet when Christ poured water in a basin, and on various 
occasions when pour occurs, not only did he use a differ- 
ent word (ballo) altogether, but when the people were 
sprinkled that word for pour is often used. Nay, the 
Greek has thirteen different words meaning to sprinkle, 
and several more being quite equivalent, as tengo (r^w), 
a number for pour, while the Hebrew has between seven- 
teen and twenty for pour, eighteen for sprinkle. See the 
list of some of them at the end of the chapter on Wash. 
To fasten on one of each of these as if it alone was and 
could be used to express the idea demanded, and deduce 
thence a fundamental law in philology, is the extremity of 
weakness. 

Let us now put these canons or laws, so implicitly relied 
on as the pillars of the immersion theory, to an actual 
test on words, many of which are not related to this ques- 
tion, and see whether or not the same word may not mean 
to sprinkle and to dip, to pour and to overwhelm, to sprin- 
kle, to pour, and to immerse. We will test it in every 
language that entered into the original composition and 
earliest and best versions of the Bible. 

1. fEJ, naha or nagd]. The primary force given by 
Fiirst, Gesenius, Schindler, and Castell is to rend with 
violence, break off, be violent. In Arabic it means, "to 
sprinkle, to soften (by application of water), to moisten, 



PHILOLOGY, OR SCIENCE OF LANGUAGE. 181 

to make wet, to wash, to dip, to penetrate. Schindler.* 
In iEthiopic the root is traced clearly to effervesce, bubble 
or sparkle up of water, break off,f gush forth, applied to 
a fountain of water breaking forth. See Psalms xxxv, 10; 
lxxvii, 49. So in Arabic it means "to pour together, 
flow-over, soften, saturate." But not only does Schindler 
make it mean to dip, penetrate into, but Castell also, "to 
be immersed in water, .... collection of saliva in the 
mouth, to immerse oneself in water, descend, be im- 
mersed." x 

2. [-"l^ shataph']. Gesenius defines this word "to 
gush or pour forth, to flow abundantly; (2) overflow. 
The rain pouring out."§ Fiirst gives the primary mean- 
ing " drop," " let fall," noun-form — " an outpouring, rain- 
gust." Yet Schindler gives it also plunge, overflow, 
overwhelm. Buxtorf gives it the derived force of "im- 
merse." Castell gives it overflow, overwhelm, immerse. 
JEthiopic, to plunge, submerse. *|[ Primarily it means to 
drop, of rain. Then in Leviticus it always means wash. 
Later, in 1 Kings xxii, 38, it is to wash, where it is by 
affusion. Later, in Ezekiel xxxviii, 22, it is a pouring 
rain. Later still it came to mean overflow, overwhelm, 
from its application to pouring rains. It never means 
immerse in the earlier books of the Bible — never in 
the Prophets or Psalms. In the latest Hebrew writings 
it nearly always applies to overflowing, overwhelming. 

* Infudit, maceravit, kumectavit, madefecit, lavit, intinit, intrivit. 

t Hiscere, debiscere, scindi, scaturire, ebullire, de aqua . . . fons vita;. 

X Castell : Immersus fuit aquce, . . . collectio saliva? in ore, . . . im- 
mergere se aquce, . . . descendit, immersum mater ice peniius (2405-6). 

\Effudit, largiter, pluvit, 2 inundavit — n. effusio, etc. (Thesaurus 
Heb. Lin.) 

1[Castell : Supra — exundavit, inundavit, immersit. ^Ethic-p., Mersus, 
submersus est, submersit, demersit (p. 3737). H- t i s rendered in LXX, 
by kTlv^g), £7a, and /cara/cA?Xw, viirru, cnrov'nrTO), irhvvu, KaTavrovTi^o), etc. 



182 BAPTISM. 

Later still the Hebrews used it for immerse, and in the 
third century after Christ it came to apply often to im- 
mersion. Here is not only a full refutation of the immer- 
sion canon, but a great key to this controversy. But let 
us multiply proofs. 

3. We have seen that bapto, the root of baptidzo, means 
to stain, color, applied to birds, to stones, etc. So zarak,* 
to sprinkle, besprinkle, pour out, in Hebrew, Chaldee, 
and Syriac; in the latter means also to color, "to color 
blue," "golden," and "various colors," while in Arabic, 
from this meaning, it applies to variously-colored birds, 
wet. 

4. Nuph, nophjf to sprinkle, be sprinkled, pour out, 
shed drops, agitate, etc. Arabic means the same ; to move, 
agitate, hurl, throw. Kindred roots, e. g. nug, agitate, 
commotion ; nuts (same root), to agitate, move, to moisten, 
motion of water, then, washing, cleansing with water or 
any liquid.^ 

5. Naphuts, to sprinkle, in Hebrew and Chaldee and 
Arabic, and in the latter to pour means " to cleanse thor- 
oughly." 

6. Zarak, often applied to rain, means also to make wet, 
to cast down, thrust down; then to rush forth, to press, 
oppress; the very meanings that often lead to immerse, 
submerse; next it means "to overwhelm." § Hence — 

7. Dachas,^ to press, oppress, impress, immersed, 
immersion. 

* Zarak, sparsit, aspersit, conspersit . . . infudit, ccerulareus, spar- 
sus, sparsio, effusio, — color cceruleus, acribus, etc., madefactus (Castell). 

t Nuph, noph. » 

%Lotio, ablutio, sine aqua sine alia re liquida (Castell). 

§ Rejecit, projecet, dejecit — noun form — pluvia tempestivia, pluvia 
. . . obrutus est (Castell). 

^Dachas, pressit, chal, compressit, impressit, . . . oppressio, . . . 
immersus, . . . immersio (Castell). 



PHILOLOGY, OR SCIENCE OF LANGUAGE. 183 

8. Matar, to rain, wet with rain, sprinkle, is translated 
by the LXX nipto, to wash ; and in Arabic it is to rain, 
to sprinkle, pour, then washing, cleansing.* 

9. Nataphj to shed drops, drop [as of rain] ; iEthiopic, 
to cleanse ; Arabic, shed drops [as of rain], sprinkle, pour 
out, to rain, to cleanse oneself, to purify. f 

10. Natal, Arabic, the same (natala), to press out, be- 
sprinkle the head with rain, pour water, etc., . . pouring 
out, wet, bedewed, . . . irrigated; in Chaldee, to wash, 
cleanse, especially the hands. . . . for it is necessary that 
the water be poured upon the hands before eating.J 

11. Zakhak, or zaquak, in Hebrew means to pour, shed 
down, moisture, purify, make pure, shed forth, cleanse, 
and the same in Chaldee. 

First, in all these words we see the connection between 
sprinkle and pour on the one hand, and wash, cleanse, 
purify or the other; second, every lexicon gives wash, 
cleanse, as the prevailing meaning of baptidzo in the New 
Testament, many confine themselves to those two mean- 
ings; third, we fail to find any connection between im-. 
merse, even when " in water," and wash, cleanse, purify ; 
fourth, the Arabic words for immerse, four or five of 
which mean immerse and have no other modal meaning, 
never mean, as baptidzo does, to wash, cleanse, nor as it 
does in the classics often, whelm, overwhelm, overflow, 
intoxicate. 

12. Nazah is the Hebrew word that most commonly 

* Matar pluvia rigatus, depluit, pluviam, demissit. Arabic, pluit, 
perfudit, perfusus, pluit, etc. (Castell). 

t Hottinger, Schindler, Castell, on nataph. 

X Natal. Arabic, natala, expressit, impluvio perfudit . caput, fudit 
aquam, effusio. Chaldee, lavit, abluit, pec. manus . . . necesse est enim 
effundebatur aqua ante prandium super manus, etc. (Castell). This is 
the word often used by Jonathan Ben Uzziel to translate rachats, wash 
(Targum on Exodus). 



184 BAPTISM. 

means, like the Greek raino, to sprinkle. It is translated 
sprinkle in the Septuagint every time it occurs, save once, 
and always in the Vulgate. Yet Schindler renders it 
not merely to sprinkle but to press out, bedew, make 
wet, to flow, overflow, distill. Fiirst renders it moisten, 
water, besprinkle, imbue, etc. In Arabic it means to 
sprinkle with water, pour out, make wet. In iEthiopic, 
to make clean, purify, cleanse. It applies to "the water 
of purification" (Num. viii, 7), then "to thrust down, to 
submerse." * 

These words cover all that baptidzo means save to 
intoxicate, and we will find words that primarily mean to 
sprinkle, to moisten, that cover that meaning amply, 
though wholly unnecessary. 

13. Ruh [as if ruke\, in Chaldee and Arabic, to expel, 
throw out, spew out, to pour out, poured out, pour down 
rain, a shower. The same root in Arabic (ruga), "spew 
out, to strike, sprinkle, to immerse." f 

14. Kechal, a Semitic word for stain, paint, Schaaf ren- 
ders paint, stain, dip, sprinkle. % 

15. Natsacha, Arabic, to pour out, sprinkle with water, 
besprinkle with water, copious rain, sprinkling (Num. 
xix, 9, 13, 20; 1 Pet. 12), sprinkled, yet to make wet, to 
wash the members [i. e. of the body, limbs]. § 

16. Mattatha, Arabic, expansion, ... to moisten with 

* Nazah, sparsit aquam vel sanguinem, aspersit, expressit, rogavit, 
humectavit, . . . asperus fuit, deffluxit, inundavit, silivat. Arabic, na- 
tzad, sparsit, aqua consperit, effudit, rigavit . . . (Num. xix, 9, 13, 20, 
etc.). JEthiopic, nazad, mundus, purus fuit mundavit ; aqua purifica- 
tionis, purgavit, dejecit, submersit. Castell, Schindler. 

t Ruga, spuma, percitssit, aspersit, immersit, etc. (Castell). Ruts, same 
root, sprinkle water, aquam infudit. 

t Kechal, . . . intinxit, aspergit (Syriac Lex. N. T.). 

I Natsacha in Arabic — effudit, etc., sparsus fuit, . . . rigatus fuit. 
. . . abluit membra. 



PHILOLOGY, OR SCIENCE OF LANGUAGE. 185 

ointment or paint, wet with water, to sprinkle oneself co- 
piously with ointment, to immerse oneself in water, mix- 
ing, immersion, commotion, confusion, or agitation. * 

17. Lathav, to wet with tears, to be given to tears, to 
stain a garment, as with sweat, dew, immersion ... in 
water or blood. It applies to drops of gum oozing out of 
trees, moisture, bedew, tree-dropping juice or moisture, 
make wet.f We will see that one of the Arabic words 
for baptize applies to juice dropping from trees, from 
juice, etc. 

18. Ravah, to moisten, make drunk, irrigate. In these 
senses this Hebrew word occurs many times; e. g. Isaiah 
xvi, 9, " I will water thee with my tears." On drunken- 
ness as a meaning see 1 Samuel xxv, 36, "Very drunken ;" 
1 Kings xvi, 9, "Drinking himself drunk" (xx, 16; Jer. 
xlviii, 26; John ii, 10, Arabic). It means irrigation (Is. 
lviii, 11). It applies in Arabic to the "agitation of the 
earth, to drink, draw water, imbue with water, to irri- 
gate" — often thus it occurs; then pouring rain, dew, dewy. J 
Here a word applied to sprinklings, pouring rains, dews, 
like baptidzo, means to be drunk, intoxicated, and, like 
bapto, to moisten, bedew, draw water, and, like both words, 
to imbue, make wet, moisten, pour water, etc. 

19. Letash, Chaldee, to sprinkle, in later days comes to 
mean a to sprinkle or immerse;" and Buxtorf and Cas- 

*Mathath, expansio, . . . imbuit . . . unguento vel pinguedine, . . . 
humore imbutus fuit, . . . saturavit, miscuit, unguento se abundi perfu- 
dit; mersit in aquam, . . . mixteo, mersio, etc. (Castell). 

f Lathav madita sive irrorata fuit, manavit lachryma succo ve arbor, 
. . . diditus lachrymal conspurcavit uti sudore, vestem, demersio, etc. 

J Ravah madefactus, inebriatus, satiolus est potu, irrigus . . . Chal. 
i. q. Heb. ib ebrius . . . irrigatio. Syr. e. q. Heb. Arab, agitata fuit 
aqua per faciam terra; conturbatio aquas supra terram . , . hausit 
aquam, potavit, . . . imbuit humore, . . . irregavit . . . imbrem fundens % 
. . . effluens, . . . ras, roridatus (Castell, 35, 42-3). 

16 



186 BAPTISM. 

tell show that the word that means to make white, to 
glitter, means to wash, to cleanse.* 

20. Arabic garakaf primarily applies to bedewing, 
dropping water, distilling rain, rain, dilute gently with 
water, rain wetting herbs, comes to apply to a garment 
dyed, like bapto, to objects "submersed in the sea," "to 
be submersed," " to immerse," " immersed in water," as 
well as "simply to pour water upon the head" as well as 
irrigate. Schindler' s lexicon (folio) defines it to perspire, 
sweat, decorate, color, pour (fudit), and yet gives it the 
meaning of immerse, demerse, twenty times. Does this 
look as if the same word could not mean in some places to 
sprinkle, in others to pour, to pour water upon objects, on 
the head, and to immerse? 

21. Chamats, chamuts, means, Gesenius, Castell, etc. 
tell us, to be sharp, acid, violent, to ferment. Hence to 
scatter in drops, to sprinkle. Hence Buxtorf, "To be 
sprinkled, stained, infected, made wet." J Schindler, " To 
sprinkle with water," etc. Yet it comes to mean " to stain, 
to dip, to immerse." § It is applied to water thus, " They 
dipped them in the water." ^f It meant to oppress also. 

22. Gamas, in Arabic, Schindler renders " dipped, im- 
mersed," as well as " sprinkled." 

23. Tomash is applied to wetting objects with tears (Ps. 

* Chal. letash, sparsit, aspersit (p. 1918). In later Talmudic days, 
"aspergat vel immergat" (Lex. Tal. et Eab. J. Buxtorf, 1140). Chavar, 
white, etc. 

tArak. Arabic, garaka, . . . leviter, aqua diluit, . . . gutta, aqua;, 
pluvia valida, . . . imbris guttce, imber herbes madefaciens, herba pin- 
guefaciens mublieres, . . gutta aquae, etc. Curcuma tincta vestis, . . . 
in mare submersce, mersum in corpore, submersus, . . . immersio, . . . 
capiti semel affudit aquam. Castell and Freytag. 

% Conspersus, tinctus vel infectus, madefactus, etc. 

$ Tingere, intingere, immergere (Castell). 

% Intingunt eos in aquam, as well as aqua perfudit (Schindler). 



PHILOLOGY, OR SCIENCE OF LANGUAGE. 187 

vi, 7 — 6 in Hebrew), to staining a mountain with human 
blood (Is. xxxiv, 3), yet is rendered "merse, moisten, dip, 
wash," etc. 

24. Persic, pharav* " poured, pour out water, . . . de- 
scend, go down and into the water, to immerse oneself, to 
flow down." Often " to depress, swallow, penetrate." 

25. Shabal has the same root in Hebrew that tabhal, 
baptize, has — bal — and means primarily to pour, to rain, 
to flow. It is the same in Arabic, and means also "to 
overflow, overwhelm," as baptidzo in the classics. 

26. Shapha is kindred with tsevha, baptize, in Arabic 
and Syriac, "to flow down, to pour out, sprinkle, pour 
forth, ... to depress or sink, to overwhelm." f 

27. Tsuph, " to pour upon, to moisten," " to overflow," 
"to inundate," "to overwhelm "J are meanings. 

28. Ratab, "to bedew, to wet, moistened, sprinkled, 
irrigated, dipped." § 

29. Nataph [root tab, as above in natab'], to drop, flow 
in drops, flow down, distill, fall in drops, to cause to over- 
flow. || 

30. Phuts, sprinkled, dispersed (after), poured, pour 
out, scattered abroad, flow down, flow out, overflow, over- 
whelm, poured out, etc.U 

* "HD, fundus, aquam effundere, . . . descendere, accidere et in aquam 
. . . se immergere, defluere, etc. 

tAffluxit, defiuxit, . . . effudit, declinavit, descendit, depressit (Schind- 
ler). Effudit, profudit — inundavit, profudit (Castell). 

% ^IjJ, tsuph, supereffundo. Trommius, manare, fluere, irrigare, in- 
undere, . . . superindet, etc. (Fiirst and Castell). 

§ --j-> maduit, humidus, humectatus, perfusus, irrigatus, intinguntur 
(Schindler). 

|| Guttavit, etc. Stellavit, . . . inundavit (Schindler). 

^y*2, phuts, sparsus, dispersus (repeated, etc.) fusus, effusus, diffusus 
fuit, depZuit, effiuxit, inundavit, exundavit, . . . effundatur, . . . inunda- 
runt torrentes rivi, et Nilus, etc. (Schindler). 



188 BAPTISM. 

31. Chalal, in Arabic, " to moisten, ... to pour," yet 
in Chaldee it is to wash, cleanse, applied to the washings 
of Leviticus, e. g. chapter xvi. 

32. Barad, to sprinkle hail, to hail. iEthiopic is the 
same. In Arabic, to pour forth water, wash with cold 
water, to wash oneself with cold water ; then it is applied 
to coloring various colors of garments, etc. 

33. MotZj " primarily, to pour out " is " to wash," ap- 
plied to washing out the mouth, " moist, damp," yet ap- 
plied to " wash oneself with a sacred washing." * 

34. Nasak, to pour, pour out. Syriac, pour out, Ara- 
bic, wash, with water and purify, . . . wet with rain, of 
the earth. 

35. Arabic gasa is to rain, make wet with rain, pour 
out, yet applies to painting, coloring, etc.f 

36. Badar, Hebrew, to scatter. Syriac, to sprinkle, 
scatter. Arabic badar a is the same, to sow, sprinkle, scat- 
ter, yet it comes to mean " to impart a yellow color," and 
just like bapto, applies to coloring and adorning the eyes; 
then, like baptidzo, in the classics, "to sprinkle with 
words," a talkative man ; then to " cause to enter," re- 
peated often; then it comes to mean "to submerse."! 

37. Nazal, " to sprinkle, dip, or distill water, rain ; then 
to depress, or press down, descend, let fall; compress in 
Arabic. Here is the idea of immersion. 

38. Shakah in Semitic languages is "to water, drink, 
irrigate, moisten, water," yet " to paint," to " impart bright 
golden or red colors," imbue, just as bapto. 

39. Words meaning to press, impress, compress come to 

* Prim, infusa, etc. . . . lavit . . . ablutio . . . lavit se sacra loiione. 

t Compluit, rigavit terram pluvid, . . . effusus, etc.— pluvid rigatus, 
. . . pinguescit, pinguendo (Castell, 2750). 

% Badar, semnavit, sparsit, dispersii, . . . verbum sparsor, . . . pen- 
etr are fecit, . . . submersit (Castell). 



PHILOLOGY, OR SCIENCE OF LANGUAGE. 189 

mean immerse very naturally and constantly. Yet the 
same force of the word causes it to mean sprinkle often. 
Pressing an object may sink, immerse it. Pressing an ob- 
ject may cause juice to stream out of it, sap, moisture. A 
grape, many objects pressed, causes the juice to be sprin- 
kled. In cases where there are many as in a wine-vat, or 
a large object full of moisture, it pours. Hence Arabic 
atsara means "to press, compress."* Next it comes to 
mean "shed drops, distill," applied to water; then to 
* enter into"f being pressed "to flee," from being op- 
pressed; "rain" (pluvia), "juice" (suecus); often it means 
juice, sap, "oil" pressed out, "clouds forcing out rain," 
"hail, snow, cold water" forced or thrust down, "sprin- 
kled with water," or dew,J "immersed in water." § In 
the above order all these with other kindred meanings 
belong to this one word, and it occurs in each of these 
senses. 

Let us test the Latin language on these principles of 
philology. 

40. ConspergOy to sprinkle, is not only applied by Ovid 
and the Latins to staining, polluting; but White's late 
Latin lexicon gives "to cover" as a meaning, while as- 
pergo, to sprinkle, means "to defile, spot, stain, fill," and 
the root spargo, to sprinkle, means to be "spotted, cov- 
ered, covered over," alluding to the colors, etc. It will be 
remembered that tabhal, bapto, tseva, have those meanings, 
spotted, colored, as of birds and garments thus colored. 

41. Tingo^\ is from the Greek tengo y "to moisten, to 

* Pressit, compressit (Schindler). Pressit (Castell). 
t Ingressus fuit (Castell). 
J Rore perfusum (Castell). 
\In aqua immergitur (Castell). 

^[ Tingo, Greek revyo [ienggo or tengo], to moisten. As this word 
figures extensively in some parts, we refer to another place for a full 



190 BAPTISM. 

make wet," where it is by tears, dew, rain, all cases of 
sprinkling, shedding forth, etc. Yet it comes to mean to 
wash, where it is by affusion, to stain, color, dye by any 
mode or process, then to dip, to plunge. 

42. Madeo, to be wet, bedew, besprinkle, is thus de- 
fined by Bullions's Latin Lexicon, 1869, "Madeo, to be 
wet, to be moist, dripping wet, . . . intoxicated, . . . 
sweat, perspire; madidus, wet, moist, metaphorically, full 
of water, soft, .... intoxicated, ... a drunkard; 8. 
soaked, dipped, dyed." How like bapto and in part bap- 
tidzo ! 

The Greek language follows the same laws. 

43. Pluno* primarily to rain, flow (of water), to 
moisten, sprinkle, pour, in early use. In Aristophanes it 
came like baptidzo to mean "to abuse, revile, reproach" — 
i. e. besprinkle with abuse, pour torrents of abuse on one. 
Plunos was a lover. See Pickering's Lexicon. In De- 
mosthenes pluno meant to abuse. It meant to wash, to 
cleanse, and that became its general meaning in Greek. 

44. Raino, to sprinkle, is defined by Pickering "to 
sprinkle; passive, to be submerged." 

45. Diugraino, sprinkle with water, wet. Groves de- 
fines also by " wash," by " soak, overwhelm." 

46. Katantleo* Dunbar defines it "to pour upon, to 
bathe with water, ... to soothe with eloquence, to over- 
discussion of it. (See on Tingo.) Hesychius defines it by (3pexcic, 
OTaldfrig, Trlrjpbiq, shed or sprinkle water, moisten, bedew, trickle down, 
as tears. Stepbanus: Tengo madefacio, humecto ; then Hesychius, as 
above. Lachrymarum guttis rigare genas — wet the cheeks with drops 
of tears. Pape: Tiyjo — benitzen, anfeuchten. Thriinen : Yergiessen — 
moisten, wet, shed tears. 

* Passow, Kost, and Palm : Ka-avrMo), druberher giessen oder schiit- 
ten, daruber ausgiessen, met. einen womit uberschutten, uberhaufen, etc. 
2. Begiessen ubergiessen, uberschutten. Galen cited. See their defini- 
tions of baptidzo now in German — same words in large part. 



PHILOLOGY, OR SCIENCE OF LANGUAGE. 191 

whelm with or pour ridicule upon one." Pickering, "to 
pour on ; to pump water upon ; to shower down (words) 
on ; to bathe with water ; to overwhelm with or pour rid- 
icule on one." 

47. Cheo, to pour, Pickering defines by "cause to 
flood," " to inter, to bury." 

48. Brecho. Let it be remembered that "soak," "inun- 
date," "drench," "overflow," "intoxicate," "overwhelm" 
are all constantly-recurring meanings of baptidzo in classic 
Greek. All immersionists agree to so translate it. Brecho 
is a prominent definition of baptidzo by all native Greek 
lexicons who define ancient Greek. Kouma and Gazes 
both give it as a prominent meaning, and the great Ger- 
man work of Schneider gives brecho as its general repre- 
sentative, answering to the " benetzen" of Pape, Post, 
Palm, and Passow. Passow, Post, and Palm all define 
brecho thus : " To wet, to moisten, to besprinkle ; thence, 
in passive voice, to be wet, receive moisture, be wet with 
rain, to rain, to tipple, soaked with wine, be drunk, to 
pour upon, to overwhelm." * 

Em-brecho, same word intensified, "to soak, to dip in." 

Liddell & Scott: Brecho, to wet, moisten, sprinkle, 
rain on, metaphorically], shower down." 

Pickering: Brecho, to moisten, wet, water, to bedew, 
besprinkle, soften, to rain, shower. Pass[ive], to be wet, 
soaked. Metaphorically, to be soaked with liquor, hence 
to be drunk or tipsy." 

Stephanus: Brecho, to moisten, dip, soften, etc.f 

Apo-brecho, to sprinkle, wet, to dip. J 

* Bpixo), benetzen, befeuchten, besprengen, dah. im. pass, sich be- 
netzen, . . . ein mit wein ueberfulter, etc. Trukner: Madidus, iiber- 
schutten, iiberhaufen, etc. 'E/zfip^t" — einweichen, eintunken. 

tBpf^w, madefacio, intingo, macero. Item irrigo, item bibo, . . . pluo. 

X 'AnoSpixo), perfundo, madefacio, intingo, etc. 



192 BAPTISM. 

JEm-brecho, "to soak, to immerse;" yet it means "To 
besprinkle, to sprinkle, likewise to merse."* Suidas, 
tenth century, defines it by " submersion."! 

49. Deuo. Here is a word that Hesyehius, fourth cen- 
tury, Suidas, tenth, native Greek lexicographers, give as 
equivalent in meaning to bapto. Stephanus quotes where 
it is used for bapto. It is quite important in this line. 

Pickering: Deuo, to wet, to steep, to moisten, to soak, 
to dye by immersion or sprinkling, ... to pour out, to 
shed, cause to flow. 

Liddell & Scott: Deuo, wet, soak, steep, . . . make 
to flow, shed, . . . our [i. e. English] dew, bedew. 

Groves : Deuo, to wet, water, moisten, bedew, sprinkle, 
to tinge, dye, color, to soak, soften. 

Stephanus: Deuo, wet, moisten, imbue, stain (tingo), 
pour, besprinkle, infect, stain, bapheus.X He continues: 
"Endeuo, to bedew, moisten, irrigate," as the equivalent 
of embapto, and that as equivalent of embrecho, above. § 

Here these great authorities place bapto, the root of 
baptidzo, as the equivalent of words that mean to bedew, 
shed down, pour, sprinkle. They sustain our laws of 
philology unanimously. These words that primarily apply 
universally to affusions, come to mean to dip, to dye, to 
color, to stain, to soak, intoxicate. 

50. Hugrino, water, sprinkle, means to wet, moisten, 
wash. 

51. Moluno, primarily to sprinkle (Stephanus), means to 
stain, to pollute, to defile. 

52. Passow : Ballo — emballo, to cast (or strike), to be- 

* 'JHfiSpexu, immadefacio, immergo . . inspersa, per/undo, item mergo. 
t Submersus, cited by Stephanus. 

§ 'Evdivo, that is to say, efidairTO), efibpkx^ Passow gives endeuo as 
bammati, i. e. bapto. 



PHILOLOGY, OR SCIENCE OF LANGUAGE. 193 

sprinkle oneself, to pour, pour out, sprinkle, to besprinkle 
oneself with bath-water." * This word applies to washing 
where it is louo, to wash, take a bath. See fully under the 
chapter on Wash. 

53. Kludzo.-\ The primary meaning of kludzo is be- 
dash, sprinkle. The ancient glosses (lexicons) have "peri- 
kludzo, sprinkle, perfuse." X Buddseus (the lexicographer, 
not the later ecclesiastic writer) has it peri-klusmati, sprin- 
kled.g Galen, the native Greek lexicographer, born A.D. 
130, renders it by "affusion," " infusion" constantly, and 
our word clyster is from it. Stephens renders it in the same 
way. Passow, the master critic in Greek, has " kludzo, 
wash, splash (or bedash), dabble, bedash, wet, wash, purify 
or cleanse," etc. Stokius: "Kludzo, wash, cleanse, wash 
(or bedew, sprinkle). "^[ Groves : "Peri-kludzo, to wash all 
round or all over, dash water, sprinkle over." Liddell & 
Scott: "To wash, dash, ... to wash off, drench, to put 
water into the ears, and so cleanse them." So Passow. 
A. Campbell quotes from Aristotle, the most learned Greek 
and accurate in words who ever wrote, where this word is 
interchanged with baptidzo, both rendered " overflowed," 
the preposition kata being joined to kludzo, as often occurs, 
as well as peri, and the same kata is often joined to bap- 
tidzo in the classics. || Here is a word that primarily 
means to splash or bedash with water, sprinkle, inject 
water, that is the "equivalent for baptidzo" Yet this 

• Xp6a lovrpbic, sich mit bade-wasser bespringen. 

t KAu£«, TrepuiXv^o. 

%Aspergo, perfundo. H. Stephens's Thesaurus : Subvoce. 

\Aspergine (X, 127 Thesaurus, H. Stephens). 

%Eluo, abluo, lavo. 

|| Chris. Baptism, page 130: "Are not overflowed (me baptizesthai), 
but at full tide are overflowed (katakluzesthai) ; which word (katakludzo) 
is here used as an equivalent for baptizesthai." Just so exactly, and in 
classic Greek, too, where they contend it does always mean immerse. 

17 



1 94 BAPTISM. 

word comes to mean not only to wash, cleanse, infuse, 
overflow, but to immerse, submerse. Stephanus renders 
it to "imbrue, overflow, bury, submerge." Buddseus does 
the same. Stokius renders also katakludzo, to bury, sub- 
merge.* Could a fact be more perfectly demonstrated 
than this, that words primarily applying to affusion come 
to mean wash, whelm, cover, immerse? 

54. Balal — balala. One more example we produce 
from the Hebrew and Arabic — balal, which has the same 
root (bal) as the Hebrew word for baptize (tabal), and is 
the word that is used in the Arabic Bible to translate 
bapto and embapto, dip, " dip in," in Luke xvi, 24, " That 
he may dip" (embapto). John xiii, 26, " I shall have dip- 
ped." But what is the primary meaning of this word, 
and what other meanings develop therefrom? 

(1) Freytag's Arabic lexicon defines it, "To moisten, 
and especially to water or soften by sprinkling or lightly 
pouring the water." f 

(2) Castell, " To moisten and especially to water or soften 
by sprinkling or lightly (gently) pouring the water. J 

(3) Gesenius, " To sprinkle, water, make wet by affusion 
of water, sprinkle." § 

(4) Schindler : Balal, to sprinkle, to moisten, to wet, to 
dip.|| 

Here is a word that primarily and habitually means to 
sprinkle where it is a very light sprinkling of water. Yet 
it is the word used to translate bapto and embapto, 

* Obruo, submergo. Stephanus : Imbruo, inundo, obruo, submergo. 

t Freytag Arab. Lex. : Madeficit et spec, rigavit, maceravit ve asperso 
aut leviter affuso humor e. 

X Castell : Same, word for word, as Frey tag. 

§ Gesenius's Thesaurus : '2i perfudit. Arabic, rigavit, affuso hu- 
mor e madefecit, conspersit, etc. 

|| Rigavit, madeficit, intinxit. 



PHILOLOGY, OR SCIENCE OF LANGUAGE. 195 

In this list of words, as in nearly all other matters, our 
own humble researches alone brought out these facts, no 
one ever having taken up this matter, so all-important to 
this question. In this list of over fifty words, all the 
words for baptism in the Bible and older versions, such as 
tabal, tzeva, and gasala, amad, amada, secho, bapto, and bap- 
tidzo, have been left out because they are the words in 
question, though legitimately they, from the facts exhib- 
ited, really belong to the list. 

The following facts, then, are elicited and settled, viz: 

1. Wash is not derived from dip or immerse. 

2. A great number of words in various languages, pri- 
marily meaning to sprinkle, to pour, come to mean to 
wash, cleanse, purify, to overflow, overwhelm, immerse, 
submerse. 

3. That immerse is in almost all cases, if not in all, a 
derived meaning, not a primary one in any case. 

4. That numbers of words primarily meaning to mois- 
ten, where it is (" affuso leveter ") with dew, drops of water, a 
gentle affusion, sprinkling, come to mean to wash, cleanse, 
overflow, overwhelm, depress, burden, immerse, submerse. 

5. That words primarily meaning, and often meaning, 
to sprinkle, moisten, wet, where it was a very light affu- 
sion of liquid or water, come to mean to stain, to paint, 
color, dye, wash, cleanse, intoxicate, soak, make drunk, 
dip, immerse, submerse — covering perfectly the classic 
meanings of bapto and baptidzo. 

6. That words primarily meaning to agitate or effer- 
vesce, from which often is derived violence, come to mean 
to sprinkle, from the violence of the fermenting or effer- 
vescing, scattering drops in all directions, staining them, 
hence to stain, dye, color; thence dye by dipping, to dip, 
immerse. 



196 BAPTISM. 

7. That words meaning to press, press down, press in, 
press together (the same word often has all these meanings) 
come to mean to sprinkle, from the juice or liquid burst- 
ing out of the juicy objects, as grapes, fruit generally, sat- 
urated materials, juicy vegetables, etc.; to pour, to color, 
to immerse, to submerse, from being pressed when resting 
on a yielding substance, as water, etc. 

8. It is demonstrated to an absolute certainty that it is 
not merely the natural law, but the only law or habit of 
language, that when a word has such meanings as intox- 
icate, wash, overflow, overwhelm, not to say sprinkle, pour, 
and dip, immerse, it begins with sprinkle or its equiva- 
lent, and proceeds to develop till it comes to mean im- 
merse, never reversing that rule in any instance in all the 
Semitic and Aryan tongues. Hence — 

9. Not only is the boasted law of immersionists utterly 
destroyed, the great philological principles on which they 
boasted their readiness or ability to rest every thing on it, 
but sprinkling is established as the primary meaning of 
bapto and baptidzo beyond the possibility of a doubt, and 
by the same rule, of tabal, amad, and the rest. 

We see also the peculiarity of word-making and deri- 
vation. A word may mean to break open, to rupture, 
that thence comes to mean pour, sprinkle, overflow, wash, 
immerse. Thus, to rupture a vessel, effect a break in it, 
water may gush out, pour, or be sprinkled, as the rupture 
is large or small. A blood-vessel may be ruptured, and 
sprinkle and stain, soil objects. A dam or great body of 
water break the levee or bank and overflow, overwhelm 
completely and wash off all before it, drown the living. 

To press an object may cause its liquid or water or the 
juices in it to gush or burst out, sprinkle objects around. 
Thence increased, a stream pours forth, as wine from the 



PHILOLOGY, OR SCIENCE OF LANGUAGE. 197 

press. Hence sprinkle, stain, and pour come from press. 
But pressing an object sinks (immerses) it in a yielding 
element, as mud, water, etc. Hence press often comes to 
mean to immerse. 

To thrust down, cast down water, blood, etc., sprinkles. 
Hence words meaning to thrust, cast down, often apply to 
rain, showers of rain. To thrust down heavy objects into 
yielding elements, as water, results in immersing it. 

These are examples of the developing of meanings to 
words. In the face of these facts how infinitely vain and 
utterly destitute of science are all those rules so much 
relied on by immersionists ! 

Two words may have primarily the same meaning, yet 
apply to different objects, consequently take on entirely 
opposite meanings. This occurs constantly. 

The old philologists relied on arbitrary rules, took 
dogmatic views, and bent philology to those views; and 
hence the abyss of darkness and world of confusion in 
which they left this subject. They would assume a word 
to be the same with another in a kindred dialect ; as amad, 
to stand, in Hebrew, and amad, to wash, sprinkle, in 
Syriac, Arabic, because spelt alike, though wholly un- 
like in meaning. Nay, Gesenius runs stark mad, and 
finds as much support or more in the remotest Aryan 
branches if a word be spelt with not a radical in com- 
mon if they sound remotely alike ! His carelessness may 
be seen, as well as A. Clarke and others too numerous to 
note, in assuming the Arabic naza, to leap, etc., to be the 
root of the Hebrew nazah, to sprinkle. Whereas the 
Arabic is nazach, sprinkle ; and still stronger in JEthiopic 
natzach, to sprinkle. The philologist has to keep in view 
constantly the fact that in Semitic oftener far than Indo- 
European tongues T (z) interchanges with JJ (tz), both 



198 BAPTIS>f. 

interchange with tt (t), D (s), e? (s/i), then with n (th), while 
2 (6), B (i>A), interchange, as well as other letters. He can 
not trace root-meanings without observing these and many 
other facts. There may be a word having one or more 
meanings fixed and settled. The corresponding word in 
Arabic, iEthiopic, or Syriac may be changed in spelling 
by these rules, and take on many meanings not found in 
the Hebrew word, yet the same or kindred meaning will 
crop out, showing the root identity. Hence the science 
of philology is at once one of the most interesting, im- 
proving, and useful studies to man. 



BAPTIDZO — WASH. 199 



CHAPTER XVI. 
Baptidzo — Wash. 

While all admit that baptidzo generally occurs in the 
New Testament and Apocrypha in the sense of wash, 
cleanse, it never so occurs in the classics. Dr. Conant, 
out of some two thousand years of literature, could not 
find a place where it meant wash. On the contrary, as 
Schleusner says, though stating that the word in Greek 
writers means " immerse, merse in water," "yet in this 
sense it never occurs in the New Testament." So does 
Stokius, who urges that it applied to washing, cleansing 
where it was effected a by sprinkling the water," "hence 
transferred to the solemn rite of baptism."* 

Another point. Emersion, rising out of the water, is 
never implied in baptidzo. Immersion does not involve 
or imply emersion. To the extent that baptidzo, in later 
Greek, where at times it occurs for a total immersion, at 
times for a partial sinking, immersed objects, so far as the 
force of the word goes, it leaves them immersed. Wherever 
it sinks, completely immerses, a living being, it perishes. In 
every instance in Dr. Conant's long list of Greek citations, 
and he erroneously professes to exhaust the use of the 
word, in not an instance does the word fail to leave the 
object immersed, or submersed, in or under the element 
into or under which the object was mersed. How could 
wash, cleanse, or purify, philologically come from such a 
* See chapter on Lexicons, where these lexicons are cited. 



200 BAPTISM. 

use? On the contrary, every entire immersion in water 
in all cases given resulted in death. Hence baptidzo in 
the classics often means to drown. If the objects immersed 
by baptidzo were dead — inanimate — decay, ruin, or destruc- 
tion ensued. No washing resulted or purification. Not 
only does this rule the classics out of the question, there- 
fore, but it amazes us that men of learning should have 
failed to examine into the world of facts which languages 
present here ; and even Dr. Dale, so voluminous on this 
subject, while professing to find new light, bases his struct- 
ure as to philology upon the groundless position that 
wash is derived from immerse ! He and those he follows 
have immerse to get wash, wash to get purify, purify to 
get sprinkle, sprinkle to get baptism ; yet if the universe 
depended on it he could not find a word that primarily 
and properly meant to immerse that ever came to mean 
to wash, to purify, to cleanse. On the contrary, as shown 
in all languages, a cloud of witnesses arise to show that 
words primarily meaning to sprinkle, to pour, to moisten, 
bedew, etc. come to mean to wash, wet, soak, whelm, over- 
whelm, dip, immerse. The truth is completely vindica- 
ted — its principles absolutely perfect. To pour or sprin- 
kle the liquid is to wet, moisten. If a coloring element, 
it stains, colors. Pouring water on objects tends to wash, 
cleanse. In many places sprinkling water cleanses, washes. 
Being purified, things are appropriated to new and better 
purposes. We may wash, dipping the object in water and 
rubbing it; but a mere dip, unlike the friction of pouring, 
does not wash. The dust-covered herbs, houses, trees, 
fences, are all washed by the sprinkling and pouring rain. 
Pouring may soak, saturate, drench, overwhelm, submerse. 
The philology is perfect and we dismiss this point. 

That the Jews washed by pouring and sprinkling mostly 



BAPTIDZO — WASH. 201 

is seen in the use of the great laver (Chapter VII), and in 
2 Kings iii, 11, "This is Elisha, that poured water on the 
hands of Elijah," as well as from John ii, 6, where surely 
they did not wash in the vessel, as, first, it was physically 
impossible as to dipping the body, and second, it would 
have ceremonially defiled the water (Num. xix, 21, 22; 
Lev. x, 34; xv, 34-36; Lightfoot, Horse Heb. et Tal., 
ii, 417); third, much less would our Savior have turned 
water defiled by washing hands in it into wine to be used 
as a drink. But we have the Jews' estimate of the 
amount of water necessary for washing the hands, for it 
is urged by some that Mark vii, 3, 4, demands us to un- 
derstand that the hands simply were plunged in water 
where the Greek is baptized. On washing hands among 
the Jews we liave the following in Jadaim (cap. 1, hoi. 1) : 
" They allot a fourth part of a log for the washing of 
one person's hands, it may be of two; half a log for 
three or four ; a whole log for five or ten ; nay, to a hun- 
dred; with this provision, saith Rabbi Jose, that the last 
that washeth hath no less than a fourth part of a log 
for himself." Lightfoot, Horse Heb. et Tal., ii, 254. 
Now a log is five sixths of a pint (§) ; a fourth of five 
sixths is five twenty-fourths or nearly one fifth (J) of a 
pint. Who could immerse or submerge his two hands 
in one fifth of a pint of water? Hence in Erubhin, folio 
21, 2 : "It is stated of Rabbi Akibah that he was bound 
in prison, and Rabbi Joshua ministered unto him as his 
reader. He daily brought him water by measure [to 
drink]. One day the keeper of the prison met him, and 
said to him, 'Thou hast too much water today.' He 
poured out half and gave him half. When he came to 
Rabbi Akibah he told him the whole matter. Rabbi 
Akibah saith unto him, i Give me some water to wash my 



202 BAPTISM. 

hands.' The other saith unto him, ' There is not enough 
for thee to drink, and how, then, shouldst thou have any to 
wash thy hands ? ' To whom he said, i It is better that I 
should die [that is, by thirst] than that I should transgress 
the mind of my colleagues.' " That they did at times par- 
tially dip the hands or one of them, no one would question. 
It depended on the water, the vessel, and circumstances. 
This shows absolutely that they never depended on dip or 
immerse for washing. See also John xiii, where the Savior 
washed the disciples' feet, and Luke vii, 38, 44, where 
the woman washed Christ's feet with her tears. The 
learned Pococke renders the passage " put into the water," 
sprinkle the hands with water.* Leigh, Lightfoot, Cas- 
tell, Buxtorf, etc. show the same to be true. 

* Manus aqua perfudit (.Nat. Miscellan., chap, ix, p. 388; Gale's Ke- 
flec, Let. iv, Wall, ii, p. 96). 



BAPTIDZO IN THE HOUSE OF ITS FRIENDS. 203 



CHAPTER XVII. 

Baptidzo in the House of its Friends — The Con- 
cord of this Discord. 

It is certainly interesting to see how the learned im- 
mersionists conflict with each other when stating so em- 
phatically their fundamental principles and the results of 
their critical researches ; and still more so to notice their 
self-conflicting statements and infinite departures from the 
true laws and science of language. 

Mr. Ingham (Hand-book of Baptism, p. 26) says, " The 
Greek verb baptidzo signifies to immerse, and ought to be 
so rendered in our translation," etc. "By immersion we 
mean [what! has immersion now to be defined also?] an 
entire covering or a complete surrounding with some ele- 
ment." Here the latest distinguished author, with Car- 
son, Conant, Campbell, Fraser all before him — Cox and 
Morell before him — refutes Carson, rejects Gale, and ruins 
all former canons of immersion. Halley differs. Ingham 
next refutes Carson on " putting into " the element as be- 
ing implied in baptidzo; while such men as Fuller, Mell 
of Georgia, and others go down before the broad sweep of 
his tremendous battle-ax. He quotes Dr. Halley to prove 
that " baptize is to make one thing to be in another by 
dipping, by immersing, by burying, by covering [what 
modes ! ! ] by superfusion, or by whatever mode effected," 
etc. (page 27). 



204 BAPTISM. 

Here the strongest writer by odds that has appeared in 
Europe on the side of immersion as late as 1866 declares, 
first, that dipping, immersing, burying, covering, pouring 
are all so many and different modes of baptism — so it re- 
sults in "complete surrounding," "entire covering"; sec- 
ond, that baptism may be accomplished by superfusion — 
pouring upon; nay, by "whatever mode effected"; third, 
is there any dip, or sink, or plunge in superfusion ? Surely 
dipping is not pouring upon. Yet says the great Dr. Gale 
(London, 1711, p. 9), "We can not believe that it is so 
doubtful in Scripture, as many pretend, whether dipping 
only be baptism. . . . I'll begin with the words £d7r«Cai 
and ^dTzzio \baptidzo and bapto], for they are synonymous" 
(Reflections on Wall, ii, p. 60, Letter iii, ed. 1862). Here 
Dr. Gale urges that only dipping is baptism. Burying is 
not dipping. Covering a thing is not dipping. If pour- 
ing water on an object is dipping it, we did not know it. 
A thing may be dipped and not covered or buried. This 
Dr. Gale freely admits. He says, "The word does not 
always necessarily imply a total immersion or dipping 
[italics his] the whole thing spoken of all over, which I 
readily allow; but, then, sir, we should remember it is not 
from any thing limiting the sense of BaTZTi^m \baptidzo\ 
but from something limiting the extent of the action in 
the subject" (Reflections on Wall, Letter iv, p. 9, vol. 2, 
etc., by Dr. Gale). 

This is racy — is brilliant. First, baptidzo, he admits, 
does not "necessarily imply a total immersion." It does 
not imply " dipping the whole thing spoken of all over." 
That is, if a man is baptized, it does not " necessarily im- 
ply " that he is immersed totally or " dipped all over." If 
but a part, nay, a small part of him, were dipped or im- 
mersed, the whole man is baptized. This surrenders the 



BAPTIDZO IN THE HOUSE OF ITS FRIENDS. 205 

whole question. It becomes rich when he adds that "it is 
not from any thing limiting the sense of baptidzo, but from 
something limiting the extent of the action on the sub- 
ject." Exactly so. Hence when the " action on the sub- 
ject" is limited to a sprinkling, a "supervision," it is not 
because the word does not at times apply to "total immer- 
sion," but because something "limits the extent of the 
action" from being an immersion or dipping at all, and 
Greek applies baptize to such cases of limited action. 

The plain English of the statement of Dr. Gale is this : 
When the administrator simply sprinkles or pours water 
on the subject baptidzo applies to it clearly enough, but it 
is not because of any thing "limiting the sense of bap- 
tidzo, but from something limiting [the administrator] the 
extent of the action on the subject." We subscribe to 
this without reservation. And because baptidzo is and 
was so limited in its action, hence it does not necessarily 
imply dipping or immersion. 

Dr. Gale innocently prattles on, saying that though a 
thing be "not dipped all over," etc., yet it does not 
"follow that the word in that place does not signify to 
dip;" and "I believe Mr. Wall will allow his pen is dipped 
in the ink, though it is not daubed all over or totally im- 
mersed. . . . What is true of any one part may be said 
of the whole complexly, though not of every part of the 
whole separately."* Then when we pour water on a can- 
didate for baptism, that part is covered with water. When 
he is sprinkled the water covers the parts on which it falls. 
If only the forehead is dipped, what is said or "is true of 
any one part may be said of the whole complexly " — so 
the man is dipped. Only a part is covered when water is 
poured; but what is true of a part may be said of the 
* Reflections on Wall, vol. ii, pp. 90, 91, Let. iv. 



206 BAPTISM. 

whole complexly — so the man is covered. According to 
this most learned of all the old immersion writers, every- 
one who is sprinkled or has water poured on him is bap- 
tized, and it was not an immersion or total dipping, for 
the " extent of the action" was limited to that partial dip — 
i. e. only a part was covered. Nor does it differ as to the 
mode of covering, for you can do this as well " by super- 
fusion" or "by pouring," Drs. Morell and Cox tell us. 
And to cover a part is to baptize the whole man. This is 
Baptist logic and argument. 

Dr. R. Fuller, a Baptist,* says, " It {baptidzo) signifies 
to immerse, and has no other meaning." Yet in the same 
book he translates baptidzo by " sink " twelve times out of 
twenty-two instances, twice by plunge, once " dip," once 
"bury," once "drowned" (p. 48), three times by sub- 
merge, three times only by immerse. In less than a page 
(pp. 47, 48) he renders it "sink" seven times consecu- 
tively. In another place (p. 17) he renders it "sink" five 
times in less than half a small page. Here — 

(1) He gives us an average of eleven against one 
against immerse. 

(2) He contradicts Gale, Cox, Ingham, Halley. 

(3) He contradicts himself; for to sink is not to dip. 
Is sink the same as plunge ? Is dip equivalent to drown ? 
Is drown or sink the same as the plunge he administers to 
a subject in baptizing him? 

Against Ingham, Halley, and Fuller, Cox lets us know 
that " The idea of dipping is in every instance conveyed, 
and no less so by all the current uses of the terms" bapto 
and baptidzo. Verily, there is trouble in the camp, if 
Dr. Conant,f who devoted more pains and expended more 

* Third ed., Charleston, S. C, 1854, p. 25, 33-37. 

tConant's book on classic use has baptidzo only from pages 1 to 72. 



BAPTIDZO IN THE HOUSE OF ITS FRIENDS. 207 

labor on this subject than all immersionists together for 
the last hundred years, out of sixty-three consecutive cases 
could render it immerse only ten times, but "whelm" and 
" overwhelm " fifty-three times ; while A. Campbell in but 
two lines over half a page of a small volume renders 
it "overwhelm" ten times, twice in same space "over- 
flowed," and out of thirty-four cases to prove its proper 
meaning only renders it immerse three times — i. e. over 
ten against one. Yet another defender of the faith tells 
us, "The idea of dipping is in every instance"! Is dip 
the same as whelm ? Is it the same as overflow ? Is it 
the same as sink? They are just the reverse. Yet Cox 
tucks about and admits a man may be immersed, covered 
by " supervision," which contradicts all he has said in 
favor of his theory. 

To make it worse Dr. Morell* says that usually it 
means " dip." " But it appears quite evident that the 
word has the sense of covering by superfusion [i. e. by 
pouring upon]. This is admitted by Dr. Cox. Thus far 
we surrender the question of immersion with Dr. Cox." 
Drs. Morell and Cox sustain Ingham and destroy Drs. 
Fuller, Gale, Mell, and A. Campbell. All this perfectly 
sustains the position that primarily affusion was the import 
of baptize, even were Cox and Morell correct in detail. 

After that it is always compounded with strengthening prepositions; 
therefore it does not apply at all, but is rather strong proof of its not 
being as he represents in many cases. But in the cases between 1 to 
i 72 it occurs about one hundred and forty-one times. In these he ren- 
ders it dip seven times — i. e. seven against one hundred and thirty-four, 
i. e. his own texts have one hundred and thirty-four against seven of 
his practice ! It is only thirty-five times immerse against one hundred 
and six against. That is, he puts it one hundred and six against thirty- 
five for his rendering. Could an enemy more perfectly destroy their 
position than this ? 

* Edinburgh, 1848, p. 167. 



208 BAPTISM. 

But against all these Baptist doctors Dr. Booth* 
swoops down like an eagle from an unpropitious sky, or 
like a furious wind that threatened to unmoor all the 
vessels that ply on the watery grave and sweep them far 
up on dry land as unworthy of a place on the "deep."f 
He says, "The verb baptize, in this dispute, denotes 
an action required by divine law. . . . What is that 
action? Is it immersion, or pouring, or sprinkling?" 
"A single specific enacting term." " Baptize is a specific 
term." " The English expression dip is a specific term." 
But alas for this "specific action." It is "whelmed" by 
Cox, Conant, and Morell ; " overwhelmed " by its advo- 
cate A. Campbell; Ingham, Conant, etc., "submerged," 
"sunk," "drowned;" its advocates " superfused," "soaked;" 
its highest points "overflowed;" its best advocates 
"drenched," "soaked," in their fruitless endeavors to 
save it. Desperation seizing them, they are now "intox- 
icated," " made drunk " with draughts of Quixotic reme- 
dies; "soused," "put under," "engulfed" in the house 
of its friends. While " undergoing " all these trials A. 
Campbell, George Campbell, and Conant make it " un- 
dergo " a contradiction of all this, and " endure " still 
another weight in the New Testament, until criticism is 
exhausted, consistency is wrecked, the immersion theory 
" perishes," and is ready to be " administered " % upon 
forever. 

* London, 1799, pp. 265, 280, 286. A. Campbell takes the same posi- 
tion in his debate with Dr. Rice, and in his book on Christian Baptism, 
that it is specific as to action — dip. 

t Immersionists often urge that the word is allied with " deep." 

X All these words in quotation-marks are actual renderings of this 
" specific," " simple " word by immersion authors of highest note, and 
almost every one of them given it by A. Campbell and Conant in their 
various works, versions, etc. "We omit the "wash" in A. Campbell's 
revision, because he tells us it was an oversight. 



BAPTIDZO IN THE HOUSE OF ITS FEIENDS. 209 

Prof. Mell, of Georgia, insists that "no passage in any- 
Greek writings up to and immediately after the time of 
Christ can be found containing these words — baptidzo, 
baptisma, baptismos — where they must be translated by any 
other English word than dip or immerse" (Baptism, pp. 
16, 17). "They express the action of immersion, and 
nothing else" (p. 16). They " mean immersion, and nothing 
else" (p. 15). Italics his. Fortunately for Prof. Mell he, 
unlike the rest, appends here no proof-texts from classic 
Greek, else unmistakably we should find in his text-illus- 
trations, as we did in all the rest of their writers, the 
clear, immediate, and overwhelming refutations of his bold 
assertion in his own proofs. Certain as fate would have 
followed such renderings of baptidzo as " sink," " whelm," 
"soak," "overwhelm," "plunge," "drown," "submerge," 
etc., and perhaps even baptism by "superfusion."* 

Dr. Carson, the most popular author the Baptists have 
had of late years, and professedly learned, says — for each 
one seems determined and bent on "my position" — "My 
position is that it always signifies to dip; never expressing 
any thing but mode. Now as I have all the lexicographers 
and commentators against me in this opinion, it will be 

* Since examining the "book in later chapters, lo ! we find he is worse 
than we predicted ! In three pages of his small book (38, 39, 40) Mell 
translates baptidzo by 1. " To lay," "laid under water"; 2. "Sink" 
(sunk) Jive times out of ten texts " ; 3. "Ruined " / 4. " Dip " ; 5. " Im- 
merse"; 6. "Steeped or soaked in wine"; 7. "Imbued"; 8. "Pressed 
down." He gives the English of immerse as sink here very correctly 
several times, and renders the same word in one sentence by two and 
three words, thus, " Who was sunk, or immersed, or pressed down by the 
weight of debts heaped upon him." Page 28 he says, "In Hebrews 
ix, 10, the translators render the word baptismos correctly washing — 
' which stood only in . . . divers washings' " Here we have nine dif- 
ferent renderings out of eleven texts ! ! We have lay, ruin, press down, 
soak. Apply these definitions to baptism in the New Testament — I in- 
deed "lay " you; he shall "ruin" you with the Holy Ghost, etc. 

18 



210 BAPTISM. 

necessary to say a word or two with regard to the author- 
ity of lexicons. . . . The meaning of a word must be de- 
termined by the actual inspection of the passages in which 
it occurs, as often as any one chooses to dispute the judg- 
ment of the lexicographers." 

It always signifies "to dip," then, says Dr. C. If so, 
then it never means to immerse, sink, nor to whelm, 
drown, intoxicate, etc., nor " cover by superfusion." But 
his learned brother, Dr. Cox, says, "A person may indeed 
be immersed by pouring [i. e. sink, plunge by pouring ! !], 
but immersion is the being plunged into water or (the 
being) overwhelmed by it. Were the water to ascend from 
the earth it would still be baptism were the person wholly 
covered by it" (p. 46). 

Where is the " never expressing any thing but mode " 
here? Where is the dip? Where is the plunge? Where 
is the sink, i. e. immerse? To "dip" is to put an object 
either partly or wholly into an element, so that it touches 
it at least, and at once withdraw it. Plunge does not im- 
ply withdrawal at all, never provides for it, and implies 
more or less force and rapidity in execution. Immerse 
implies not withdrawal at all. Dip does in all these au- 
thors, as they do not use it in derived and remoter senses, 
as ships, boats, dipping water, etc. 

BAPTISTS IN HARMONY. 

Now with "all the commentators and lexicographers 
against" "his position," Carson insists that baptidzo means 
to "put into." Conant says it is to "put into — under." 
Ingham says it means to "put into." In Leviticus it 
(bapto) is rendered " put into " (pp. 31-32). He renders it 
" put into " ten times (pp. 27-29). Nay, indorses the idea of 



BAPTIDZO IN THE HOUSE OF ITS FRIENDS. 211 

" coming into the condition of being under water." Now, 
first, to "put into," which Conant, Ingham, Carson, A. 
Campbell, and others say is the exact import or force 
of baptidzo, is not necessarily "to dip," "plunge," or 
" immerse." You can " put into " without either of these 
actions. Nay, second, the word pour in Greek as well as 
in Latin both means to "put into" and "to mix" often. 
"Put water into a basin "=" pour" it into it. This word, 
that means to " put into," is translated by Passow, Wahl, 
and others by to "sprinkle," "besprinkle" over and 
again. Ed. Robinson's Greek Lexicon renders ballo "put 
or pour" several times. How .ruinous to immersionists 
are their favorite words. No word exactly suits them. 
They give us immerse. They have to turn round and tell 
us what that means, define it in detail and by most oppo- 
site words. To "surround completely;" that won't do. 
The same writer in the same line tells us it is an " entire 
covering." Yea, it is to "put into" — it is to dip. But 
each of these words or expressions are widely different. 
In Exodus xxx, 18, I read, "Put (ix^e?*?, ekcheeis — pour) 
water therein." Dr. Gale says twice that "baptidzo" sig- 
nifies only to dip or put into" (pp. 69, 74). As Christ and 
Moses use a word for "put into" that often means to 
sprinkle, to pour (cheo and ballo), and if "put into" is the 
meaning of bapto and baptidzo, it is crushing to immersion 
and very satisfactory to us. Conant says (Baptizein, p. 
89), "It means simply to put into or under water (or other 
substance"), etc. A. Campbell (Debate with Rice, p. 126), 
"Put himself under the water." Dr. Gale says baptidzo 
signifies nothing "but to dip or put under or into." "Dip 
or put into" (Reflections on Wall, 2, chap, iii, pp. 64, 
96). 



212 BAPTISM. 

A TOUCH, A FEW DROPS WILL DO. 

Luke v, 38 : " New wine must be put into new bot- 
tles. " There is the precious word that defines immersion, 
that defines baptidzo in immersion writers. Yet this same 
word is rendered (Matt, xxvi, 12), " She hath poured this 
ointment," etc. See also Matthew ix, 17, where it occurs 
also. This is one of the words Hinton, the Baptist, puts 
for pour. It seems to us that Dr. Gale is as hard pressed 
as was my friend Dr. W. T. Brents, of Tennessee, at 
Franklin, in debate, 1873, when, being pressed on dip as 
used in the version of James, he said, " Could I wield 
the power I could dip an elephant in a spoonful of 
blood." Hear the learned doctor : " For if the word (bap- 
tidzo) does but signify to dip I ask no more. Let it relate 
to the whole body or a part of it only ; either way I gain 
my point" (ii, 110). He quotes Matthew xxvi, 23, on bap- 
io, " he that dippeth," "And all the use he (Wall) makes 
of it is only to observe the word does not here mean the 
dipping of the whole hand. But this is nothing to the 
purpose; for the question is not about the whole or a 
part of the subject, but whether the Greek word signifies 
only to dip, or any thing else" (p. 112, ibid.). In a word, 
Dr. Gale admits the word does not necessarily imply 
envelopment, covering, burial, but if only the subject be 
applied to the element, the most partial entrance by the 
smallest part, end of the finger, end or point of the pen, 
the whole is dipped ! He was too good a Hebrew scholar 
as well as Greek not to know that at least from his own 
standpoint every dip in the Bible, save one or two at 
most, failed to be what immersionists require — they were 
not complete immersions. 



ANCIENT CRITICISMS — ERRORS. 213 



CHAPTER XVIII. 

Ancient Criticisms — Errors. 

If immersionists have been in utter confusion to find 
adequate words to express their conception of baptism, 
which surely should close their mouths against other 
parties about translating the word, they are no less con- 
founded as to the original or primary meaning of baptidzo. 
Not only they, but those who have assumed immerse as 
the primary meaning have occupied a position alike un- 
true and uncandid, while the more candid have been 
driven about without sail or rudder. 

1. Beza, a favorite author with all immersionists be- 
cause not understood (for, as will in due time appear, he 
taught that even John the Baptist poured the water on 
the people in baptism — effundo), says, " Bapitxi^ (baptidzo) 
differs from duvat (dunai), in that dunai means to sink 
deeply (submergere) " (Annot. Matt. iii). 

2. Casaubon, a name much paraded indeed, says, " This 
was the rite of baptizing, that persons were plunged into 
the water ; which the very word baptizein (baptize) suffi- 
ciently declares [it declares nothing of the kind, and 
Conant and others admit it implies no particular element, 
applies to any material] ; which, as it does not signify 
dunein (that is, a specific word for immerse), to sink to the 
bottom and perish, so doubtless it is not epipolazein, to 
swim on the surface. For these three words are of dif- 
ferent significations" (Annot. on Matt, iii, Ingham, 90). 



214 BAPTISM. 

3. Terretinus, Vossius, Witsius, and Suicer all follow 
this almost verbatim, and the rest of the old school follow 
them. Pasor and other old authors follow with the same 
assertion about dunai. See Pasor's Lexicon on baptidzo. 

Now, first, these authors use the very Greek word that 
they themselves render by mergere in every case, " sub " 
added, and dunai, one of the words for immerse ; and its 
force is destroyed by putting it into actual English, sink, 
and retaining a Latin word, immerse, for baptidzo. Second, 
dunai {endunai and katadunai) is the very word used by 
the Greeks, used by the Greek fathers in nearly every 
case when they wish to say immerse. When they defined 
that the canon meant immerse for baptism, this is the 
word they used both in its verbal and substantive form.* 
Conant gives this case, "Three immersions in one bap- 
tism," as it is in the Greek. f He does all he can to 
conceal the force of it by rendering immerse " sink " every 
time, and baptism by immerse. That is, he renders the 
real word for immerse (Jcataduo) by sink, the true English 
word, and baptism by the Latin of sink. Conant quotes, 
"Then when we emerge (ana-dunai)," etc. "For that 
the child (Jcata-dusai) sinks down (is immersed) thrice in 
the font and comes up again (ana-dusai)" is emerged, 
properly. How could the child come up again? X Where 

• The apostolic canons, sixth century a.d., say, " If a "bishop or pres- 
byter shall not perform three immersions (baptismata) for one initiation, 
but one baptism" etc. This is the only place in all their literature where 
baptisma stands for immersion, and it is plural— baptismata. But Zo- 
naras, the Greek, explained this canon thus: "The canon here calls the 
three baptisms three immersions — kataduseis " — Kara and dvvat, to sink, 
be immersed. 

t Tac rphc KaraSvoEiQ . . . ev evl (3aTTTi<T/j.aTi — tas treis kataduseis . . . 
en heni baptismati. Conant's Baptizein, pages 106, 108, 110, 117, 119, 
133, full of examples of Svvai, dunai, endunai, katadunai used for baptism, 
anadunai for emergence. J Baptizein (p. 108). 



ANCIENT CEITICISMS — ERKOKS. 215 

the Greek reads "the threefold immersion and emersion," 
Conant has it "the threefold sinking down and coming 
up."* In most of the cases the parties were infants 
under a year old. How came they up ? 

Heliodorus, about a.d. 390: "And being already bap- 
tized [i. e. overwhelmed by the waves, as the ship was in 
a storm], and wanting little of being immersed — hata- 
dunai — some of the pirates at first attempted to leave and 
get aboard of their own bark." f Notice here, in this 
quotation cited by Conant and baptidzomenon, rendered by 
him " becoming immerged and wanting little of sinking, 
some of the pirates attempted to leave," etc., first, the 
ship was baptized by the storm dashing the waves upon it. 
It was " baptized " but not " immersed ; " second, if 
" already immerged " how could the pirates be calculating, 
some whether to desert it or not and others not even yet 
resolved to desert it? third, notice that baptize here 
is contrasted with immersion. See also Dr. Gale on 
dunein (Wall, vol. 2). 

How now can dunai mean to perish, necessarily, when 
not only it, but when strengthened by kata to give it ad- 
ditional force, still so far from implying such an immer- 
sion as necessarily takes to the bottom or causes to perish, 
it is the very word used to express the mode of the bap- 
tism which we call immersion and trine-immersion? One 
more case out of Conant, p. 106, " For to be baptized, 
even immersed {kataduesthai),% then to emerge," etc. 
Again, "For as he who is immersed in the waters (en- 
dunon), and baptized," etc. § 

*Tcetrissce katadusai kai anadusai. Here is dunai with kata and ana 
— to express immersion and emersion. 

fELSr/ 6e (iairr^ojihov ml mradvvai, etc. (See Conant, page 18). 

X Yet Dr. Graves repeats this blunder (Debate, p. 289). 

§ Baptizein, 104. '~Ev6vvu)v iv toioc vdaat ml ^aTTTi^d/ievog — here we 
have en dunai, to be mersed in — immersed. 



216 BAPTISM. 

A. Campbell quotes Basil, a.d. 360: "By three immer- 
sions the great mystery of baptism is accomplished. " * 
He adds several more where both endunai and katadunai 
express his idea of an immersion. Conant therefore says 
of baptidzo (p. 89), " It means simply to put into or under 
water (or other substance), without determining whether 
the object immersed sinks to the bottom or floats in the 
liquid, or is immediately taken out." He adds on same 
page that the word baptidzo is also used where a living 
being is put under water for the purpose of drowning, and 
of course is left to perish in the immersing element." No 
one will dispute this. Ingham, Carson, Cox, and A. Camp- 
bell give many illustrations of it, and A. Campbell there- 
fore renders it to " drown." Here, then, we see — 

4. That these writers demonstrate to us that baptidzo is 
used in classic Greek frequently in the very sense which 
they attach to dunai — sink that they may perish, while 
dunai is used to express the force of baptidzo when it is 
used for an immersion where the party does not perish. 

5. Hence this old theory, being crushed by Conant and 
his associates, and utterly exploded and abandoned by 
them, it follows that the criticisms, views, and arguments 
that Pasor, Terretinus, Casaubon, Sucier, Beza, Vossius, 
Witsius, and others built upon such crudities, must fall so 
far as their support goes. On this false conceit, and the 
assumption denied by all immersionists that Jewish prose- 
lyte baptism was before Christ and followed by the apos- 
tles, the old immersionists of the fifteenth, sixteenth, and 
seventeenth centuries built all their arguments for immer- 
sion. The other was the assumption of the oneness of 
classic and Biblical Greek, though they, despite their 
theory, were forced to see baptidzo was an exception. 

* En trisi tais katadusesi (Chris. Baptism, p. 182). 



ANCIENT CRITICISMS — ERRORS. 217 

They differ equally in selecting the word to express 
the primary meaning of bapto and baptidzo. Pasor, a 
favorite with immersionists, gives bapto as " derived from 
bao, Hebrew, ba," "whence is bapto" equivalent, he says, 
to the Latin mitto. Schleusner, in his Septuagint Lexicon, 
derives it from Hebrew bo, in Hiphil, heba* He then 
gets thrust, lead to, pour together, moisten or bedew. But 
all this all critics, and all immersionists especially, will 
utterly repudiate. Gazes derives it from ballo, which not 
only implies to throw but to sprinkle and pour. Still less 
unscientific is the present disposition of immersionists to 
discover the primary meaning of words, especially of this 
word. Their plan is to find what is in a given age or 
period, a most common or prevailing use of a word, or 
meaning attached, and then accept that as proof absolute 
of its primary meaning. Yet there is not a Baptist scholar 
that does not know such a rule to be utterly false and 
unscientific. On the contrary, ninety-nine words out of 
every hundred in all Indo-European and Semitic lan- 
guages are used most constantly in figurative senses and 
not in the primary sense at all. This is so true that no 
one will deny it, and is sufficiently explained in all scien- 
tific works on the subject of philology. The truth is, there 
are less than five hundred root- words in our language of 
one hundred thousand words. But where, in what liter- 
ature, and in what department of life will words most 
perfectly hold or retain their primary meanings ? 

BAPTIDZO IN THE CLASSICS. 

In medicine and theology words will most perfectly 
retain their primitive meaning for reasons plain to every 

* Pasor : Ba7rr«, . . . derivatur a fido pro quo /3aivu et Heb. ^ unde 
est (3aiTT0), etc. "Schleusner — LXX Lex: (Sairru, . . . Nib, in Hiph. 
K2n adducor Lev. xi, 32, immittatur, machats, confundo, pago, madeo." 

T 10 



218 BAPTISM. 

mind. In law they will stand the next best chance. It 
is in the religious use of the word we may most naturally 
seek for its primitive meaning. In medical Greek works 
we may find the most proper aids to a correct understand- 
ing of it. But right here we find that we are left almost 
exclusively to religious use ; for we have no medical work 
coming down from remote times in Greek, Hippocrates 
and Galen being the oldest, and the works of the former 
interpolated. 

That we may see how little help can be obtained from 
classic Greek, let us note the following facts, which will 
exclude it from any place in the investigation of the Bible 
or New Testament use of this word: 

Ingham, the Baptist, quotes Swarzius thus: "'To bap- 
tize, to immerse, to overwhelm, to dip.' To authenticate 
this as the primary meaning of the term (baptidzo), he 
(Swarzius) adduces the following authorities: Polybius, 
iii, 72, etc., Dio, Porphyrius de Styrze, Diodorus Siculus, 
Strabo, Josephus." Now this is a fair specimen of all 
arguments to discover the primary meaning of baptidzo. 
Stephanus, 1572, of whom Scapula, Pasor, Hedericus, 
Schrevellius, Donnegan, etc. are mere abridgments, omit- 
ting his authorities or proof-texts, gives Plutarch first, who 
died one hundred and forty years after the birth of Christ, 
and brings in Plato about last; while Aristophanes, B.C. 
450, and Pindar, B.C. 522, Aristotle, etc. are not quoted. 
Schleusner gives Diodorus the Sicilian, sixty to thirty 
years before Christ, first, " of the overflowing (exundante) 
of the Nile; next Strabo, who died about A.D. 25. Wahl, 
who sought to improve lexicography with Schleusner, cites 
Josephus first, who died A.D. 93; next Polybius, who died 
about one hundred and twenty-five years before Christ. 
Passow quotes Plutarch first (see above), and Plato, the 



ANCIENT CRITICISMS — ERRORS. 219 

first prose-writer who uses the word, last, omitting, with 
all the rest, Aristophanes and Pindar, the first Greeks who 
are known to have used the word ! ! Liddell & Scott fol- 
low suit, and Ed. Robinson cites Polybius first, Diodorus 
Siculus, etc., and does not improve the matter an iota. 
Conant cites Polybius first, Plutarch next. When our 
immersionist friends get angry at the lexicographers and 
"appeal to the ultimate authority" — the writers them- 
selves — Drs. Conant, Carson, Gale, Pendleton, Ingham, 
A. Campbell, et alii, and say every definition must be sus- 
tained by a cited text, forgetting all that though in He- 
brew and Syriac, taking Gesenius's immerse and dip under, 

22X, when there is no such Hebrew word at all, hence no 

-t' 
text cited, but only the Chaldee tzeva; when they so con- 
stantly appeal from the lexicons to the classics, we demand, 
then, proof-texts for the primary meaning. To quote a 
writer who was born long after the commission was given 
to baptize, supposing classic Greek legitimate evidence, is 
an infinite absurdity. To suppose that the above lexi- 
cographers were discussing primitives and derivatives, yet 
never classifying the relative claims of writers to accuracy 
of style, nor their ages, no, nor their centuries, jumbling 
all together — hotchpotching — is to accuse them of a stu- 
pidity most disgraceful. They have not tried to trace the 
difference in the meanings of this word or its root, bapto, 
as they occur in different ages. They give to both of them 
very different and seemingly opposite meanings, as has 
been seen, yet no scientific reason whatever. "Dip" is 
not " immerse " or " sink." " Plunge " is not " overflow." 
"Dip" is not "whelm" nor "overwhelm." "Sink" is 
not "inundate." " Wash" is not "intoxicate" nor " make 
drunk." "Sprinkle" and "pour" are not "drown." 
Freund and all Latin lexicographers and all the philolo- 



220 BAPTISM. 

gists of the age demand that we trace the word to its 
earliest occurrence, find its meaning or meanings; then de- 
scend, tracing every shade of meaning it took on, and why, 
how; and thus by the "comparative philology" or scientific 
processes we arrive at the perfect truth. We have never 
seen a Greek lexicon that cited Pindar or Aristophanes on 
baptidzo; no, not even Aristotle, Alcibiades, or Demos- 
thenes. They have done far more justice to the root 
fid-xTO), especially Stephanus. Pindar was born B.C. 522. 
Between his birth and that of the average authors cited 
by the standard lexicons on baptidzo five hundred years 
intervene! Is this looking after the primary meaning? 
Between Aristophanes, B. c. 450, and the ages of the au- 
thorities cited, over four hundred years pour their power- 
ful and all-changing tide. Not only do words change 
wonderfully in such periods of time, but nations rise and 
totter to their fall, empires come upon the vast plains of 
history, flash their meteoric splendors across the darkness 
of ages, are torn, rent, decay, and fall. Cities are founded, 
rise to renown, and proclaim themselves eternal ; but decay 
eats away their vitals and change after change ensues, till 
only a miserable and degenerate rabble is left to tell the 
tale of their departed greatness, or a fisherman's net and 
hut alone are left as a sad memorial of the work of time. 
While thus empires, nations, kingdoms, states, cities, and 
their languages have all been changed and modified by 
time, yet this one word baptidzo is assumed by immer- 
sionists to have been a diamond of such essence, a pearl of 
such water, as to resist the powers that wrought change 
upon every thing on earth and made deep engravings on 
the brow of old earth itself, yet left this word unaffected. 
Sublime conceit ! Masterly and irresistible faith ! 



ANCIENT CRITICISMS — ERRORS. 221 

IS THE FOOT THE HEAD? 

To see how unscientific has been the methods of the 
old philologists we have only to name the fact that Aratus, 
seven hundred years later than Homer, is the first author- 
ity cited by Stephanus on bapto. He is four hundred 
years later than iEschylus, two hundred years later than 
Aristophanes, who uses the word unusually often for one 
not writing on nature or art. But of all works the most 
astonishing here is the distinguished Dr. Dale's. He pro- 
fesses to adopt a most careful system of investigating. 

DR. DALE'S METHOD. 

While he deserves the greatest credit — as far as we have 
seen his works, two first volumes — for research, his rule 
or canon of interpretation is so destitute of all science 
that it is simply preposterous. Seeking the primary mean- 
ing of the words in dispute, he never classifies authors, 
disregards time, the early or late date of authors ; but all 
are thrown together without order or method, and the 
most arbitrary principles adopted. In classic Greek here 
is his order. 

1. Baptidzo. Accidentally Aristotle is put first. But 
in the same table, exerting more influence though, Archias, 
ninety years before Christ, comes next, and as of equal 
influence Julian, A. D. fourth century, comes next! Lu- 
cian a.d. 120 follows. Orpheus, apocryphal and of un- 
known late date, comes next. Plutarch A. d. 90, the 
next! In his next chapter, p. 254, it is thus: Achilles 
Tatius, at the close of the fifth or dawn of the sixth cen- 
tury after Christ, quoted three times consecutively ; next 
an apocryphal iEsop, writer and date unknown; next Alex. 



222 BAPTISM. 

Aphrod., about A. D. 200, three citations! In the next 
chapter he begins with Achilles Tatius, five hundred years 
after Christ, giving four citations, p. 283. Next, on spe- 
cific influence, p. 317, he begins with Achilles Tatius 
again! The next cited was born about two hundred and 
thirty years after Christ, while for secondary use he cites 
Plato who lived in the fifth century before Christ. Though 
Plato uses the word in a metaphorical sense that is based 
on a literal sense, and philological science owes it to 
science to use the fossil remains of antiquity to resurrect 
the living forms of the literal language. 

On bapto he begins with Theocritus, eight hundred 
years later than Homer. His fourth author is in the third 
century after Christ ; his next in the fourth ; his next in 
the ninth century after Christ ! ! That is to say, Dr. Dale, 
with Carson, Gale, and the rest, quote a word used eight- 
een hundred years later than its first occurrences to find 
its primary meaning. If that is philology or science then 
Livingstone could have discovered the head of the Nile 
without going up stream, but to the mouth of the river, 
and Jefferson should have sent Lewis and Clarke to the 
region of the jetties, instead of the mountains and Indian- 
covered hills of the northwest, to discover the primal 
source of the Mississippi. 

We think Dr. Dale altogether wrong in his assuming — 

(1) That "permanent influence" was dreamed of by 
those who used baptidzo. 

(2) If " interposition" implied such an idea, so did pon- 
tidzo, buthidzo, dunai, katapontidzo, Jcataduo. Homer, 
Herodotus, Thucydides, and the best as well as oldest 
Greek literature we have, use the last word where later 
Iron-age Greek — the only kind Dr. Dale cites or can cite 
for his immerse — uses baptidzo of vessels sinking, etc. 



ANCIENT CRITICISMS — ERRORS. 223 

(3) A thousand words may imply in their effect perma- 
nent influence, including kill, murder, sin ; as, to cut off 
a chicken's head is permanent influence. In all this it is 
simply assuming what no Greek ever dreamed of in the 
use of that or any other word of mere action or mode, 
however varied that action. 

(4) But really the earliest use we have of the word did 
not contemplate permanent any thing, nor particular or 
specified duration. It is used for abuse, aspersion, as 
katantleo is in Greek. It is used for becoming drunk, for 
confusing with questions, and for overflowing land with 
tide-water, and these are its earliest recorded uses. In 
not one of these is permanent or unlimited influence 
thought of by the writer. 

(5) His treatment rests on the supposition, really, that 
words originate with learned, deeply-metaphysical schol- 
ars, with these abstruse and remote meanings implied. 
Nothing is further from the facts. Word-building is a 
vastly different process. 

2. Pindar, the Greek poet, is the first writer in the 
world yet found who uses it, and he but once, and in a 
metaphorical sense, pointing to the use of the word 
for a great while before his day. Describing "the impo- 
tent malice" and abuse of his enemies who aspersed his 
fair fame he said, " For, as when the rest of the net is 
toiling deep in the sea, I am as a cork above the net, un- 
baptized by [the waves] of the sea " — aSaxrunSq ei/u . . . 
HXpac. Scholiast, "sails undis." That is, I am as serene, 
unharmed by your raging malice and abusive epithets as 
the cork is above the stormy and foaming billows. The 
waves of malice — i. e. your abusive epithets — fall harm- 
lessly upon me, do not overwhelm me. The Greeks, the 
Latins, and other nations constantly use the word sprinkle 



224 BAPTISM. 

and pour for this very idea, but they never use immerse. 
So we in English say, "aspersion," "asperse" one's char- 
acter, "foul aspersion," for slander, abuse. Shakspeare 
uses "bespatter" often fbr the same, as well as Bunyan, 
"bespatter a man,"* complaining of their abuses and 
defamations. Taylor, Baptist historian, says, "To vindi- 
cate them from those aspersions." f Shakspeare, " I was 
never so bethumped with words," etc. "These haughty 
words bespatter me like roaring cannon-shot." Often in 
Arabic a word meaning eloquent means to pour, sprinkle. 
The first occurrence, then, is no case of immersion nor 
dipping, but the application of the baptizing element to 
the subject coming upon him, and he as unharmed by it 
as the cork on the waves of the sea; every effort of the 
wave to fall upon, drench, or overwhelm him fails. 

3. Aristophanes, the poet, 450 years before Christ, 
uses it once. He uses it in a metaphorical sense thus, 
"For he is praised," says he, "because he baptized (k6&n- 
nffev, ehaptisen) the stewards," etc. It is here used in the 
sense of bespatter with epithets or words, abuse, traduce, 
especially ridicule. There is no immersion or dipping 
here. To sprinkle any one with epithets or with praise 
was a common expression. The Greeks had this as a com- 
mon saying, " To sprinkle any one with song," " sprinkle 
any one with eulogies." % In the above cases the stronger 
form is used — pour ridicule upon, overwhelm with words. 

4. Plato, the great philosopher, born B. c. 429, is the 
first prose-writer that uses the word. It occurs three 
times in his writings, rendered "overwhelm" every time 
by Conant, A. Campbell, Gale, and all other parties we 

* Bunyan's Differences about Baptism, complete works, page 842. 

t Hist. Baptists, page 330, by Benedict. 

X'~Paiveiv, riva v/ivy — fraiveiv evXoyiag rcva (Pindar, viii, 81, etc.). 



ANCIENT CRITICISMS — ERRORS. 225 

suppose. It is metaphorically used each time. " Speak- 
ing of young Cleinias, confounded with the sophistical 
questions and subtilties of the professional disputants, he 
says, ' And I, perceiving that the youth was overwhelmed 
— baptized — wishing to give him a respite.' " Questions 
asked confusing the boy is not putting the boy into the 
questions, but the questions to him. The boy is not 
poured on the questions, but the questions are poured on 
to him so fast that he is confused, overwhelmed by 
them. By the way, whence that word confuse?* Alex- 
ander was " overwhelmed — baptized — with wine." 

Plato again says, "For I myself am one of those who 
yesterday were overwhelmed — baptized," alluding to the 
drinking of wine.f Conant says, " In this use the Greek 
word corresponds to the English drench" (p. 70). No 
dip, no immerse; yet — 

5. Alcibiades, B.C. 400, who comes next, was a poet, and 
uses it metaphorically, as have all who as yet used it. In 
an epigram on the comic poet Eupolis, occasioned by the 
offensive allusions in a play by him called Baptce — those 
who stained, colored — metaphorically, those who bespat- 
tered with billingsgate — " You besprinkled (/3a7rre<r, baptes) 
me in your plays [i. e. with words of abuse] ; but I will 
destroy thee with streams more bitter, baptizing thee with 
waves of the sea." J I will pour upon you a torrent of 
invective; I will pour bitterest streams of abuse upon 
you ; as with the w r aves of a sea I will overwhelm you. 
Later by centuries Plutarch speaks of one " baptized by 
[excessive labors] falling upon him — uxEpSaXXouat, huper- 
ballousi." He drew the comparison from "a moderate 

* Enthydermus, chap, vii ; Conant, p. 65. 

t Conant, pp. 69, 70. 

X See the Greek, Conant, p. 29. 



226 BAPTISM. 

amount of water," nourishing plants; but too much choked. 
There is no dip, no immerse yet ; but invariably the appli- 
cation of the baptizing element to the subject. 



BAPTIDZO — PRIMAKY MEANING. 

A striking instance of the twofold fact that a word 
may primarily mean to sprinkle or pour and then to over- 
whelm, flood, inundate, and also be used to express a tor- 
rent of words poured upon one, aspersion, abuse, is found 
in Athseneus : " You seem to me, O guests, to be strangely 
flooded — xarTjvrX^ffdacj kataentlaesthai, overwhelmed with 
vehement words, while also waiting to be overwhelmed — 
psSa-KTiadai, bebaptisthai, baptized — with undiluted wine." 

Here the parties are "overwhelmed" with vehement 
words, overwhelmed with wine. The two words are used 
in the same sense. Dr. Conant renders kataentlaesthai 
here " flooded " — a strong phrase for overwhelm. But this 
word used in the same sense as baptidzo here primarily 
applies to affusion, means generally to sprinkle, to pour. 
Passow, Pape, Rost, Palm, Stephens all render it generally 
by sprinkle and pour.* Dunbar renders it " To pour upon, 
to bathe with water, ... to soothe with eloquence, to 
overwhelm with or pour out ridicule upon one." Liddell 
& Scott : " To pour upon or over ; hence, metaphorically, 
to pour a flood of words over one, to bathe, to steep, 
foment." 

Here is a word that primarily applies to affusion by 
agreement of all authorities that is used by the Greeks in 
the same sense with baptidzo — just as it is often used. In 
Aristophanes, Demosthenes, and in Plutarch in its noun 

* Pape : Darubergiessen=schutten, etc. Passow : Same, and darub-. 
erausgiessen, uberschutten, uberhaufen. 



ANCIENT CRITICISMS — ERRORS. 227 

form, pluno, to rain, pour, sprinkle, then to wash, means 
"to abuse, revile, reproach."* 

6. Demosthenes, born B.C. 385, next uses it once, if he 
be the author of the speech attributed to him. He uses it 
greatly strengthened by the preposition dia, dia, thus: 
"Not the speakers — public declaimers — for they knew how 
to baptize with him — Philip" — SiaSa-M^adai — diabaptid- 
zesthai — tuutw, with this man. Here it "is used metaphor- 
ically, and the sense is, for these know how to match him 
in foul language," says Dr. Conant, p. 77 ; but when he 
makes it "souse" it is ridiculous. That figure so common 
to the Greek language, as well as the English, of bespatter- 
ing, aspersing with foul words, and when gifted in speech, 
"pour out a torrent of words;" common to the Latin, 
very, and to the Arabic, alone makes sense and is true. 
In a past chapter the reader found many cases of this in 
the foot-notes, where words for sprinkle and pour coming 
to mean overwhelm, etc. were given. Consult Graves- 
Ditzler Debate, pp. 397-8, et seq. 

7. Aristotle, born B.C. 384, uses it once only in all 
his writings. He is the first writer known to use it liter- 
ally. All as yet used it metaphorically; he uses it "in 
the literal, physical sense," as Conant would say. Being 
the most learned and scientific and accurate Greek who 
ever lived, having the most complete and accurate scholar- 
ship of all Greeks and careful in his use of terms, and the 
first we have that uses it literally, we must notice closely 
his use of it, and thereby get all the light we can. He 
says, "They say that the Phoenicians who inhabit the so- 
called Gadera, sailing four days outside of the Pillars of 
Hercules with an east wind, come to certain places full of 
rushes and sea-weed, which, when it is ebb-tide, are not 

*See Pickering's Revised Greek Lexicon, 184G, etc. 



228 BAPTISM. 

overflowed — m panzireadcu, mae baptidzesthai, but at full tide 
are overflowed — xaraxXO^ffdac, katakludzesthai." * Notice — 

1. The element comes upon the baptized object. The 
land is not dipped — it does not penetrate into the water, 
nor sink into it, is not immersed, but overflowed by the 
rushing water. 

2. It is equivalent to the word xaraxlb^m, katakludzo. 
Aristotle, instead of using either word twice so closely 
for the same fact, uses baptidzo for it first, then katahludzo. 
Katakludzo is compounded of the preposition kata, to 
strengthen the verb, and kludzo. See Chapter XIII, p. 138. 
Its primary meaning is to bedash, sprinkle, infuse water. 
The word clyster is the noun of the verb, often occurring 
in Greek. The ancient lexicographers have peri-kludzo 
for sprinkle, besprinkle, bedash with water. Yet it comes 
to apply to a more copious use of it, but always with 
the water, the active agent, not passive — not penetrated. 
by the object, but falling upon the object. It often means 
to wash also. Hence the greatest of Greek scholars in the 
golden age of Grecian intellect, using baptidzo interchange- 
ably with such a word, crushes the immersion theory to 
atoms, and shows that a word primarily meaning to sprin- 
kle or bedash with water is the equivalent of baptidzo. 
It was centuries after this that Theophylact, the Greek, 
used the same word, katakludzo, to express the baptism of 
the Holy Spirit. See Conant, Ex. 199, p. 113. 

3. Baptidzo does mean, often means, "to overflow." 
A. Campbell, Prof. Eipley (Baptist), Svvartz, M. Stu- 
art render it overflow. Conant renders its equivalent 
"overflow" in the same line, but falsely renders baptidzo. 

* Aristotle, De Mirabil. Auscultat, 136; Conant, 3. Dr. Conant 
shamefully translates the one immerse, the other-, for exactly the same 
thing, overflow. A. Campbell was more candid. 



ANCIENT CRITICISMS — ERRORS. 229 

Yet (p. 88), summing up, he renders it "overflows," allud- 
ing to this case. But no word either primarily meaning 
immerse — if such a word exists — or that properly means 
immerse, with no other primary meaning implying affu- 
sion, can be found that means to "overflow." The three 
Hebrew words for immerse, tabha, kaphas, shakha; the 
six or eight Arabic words elsewhere given ; Persic, Syriac, 
^thiopic ; mergo, im-, de- y and sub-mergo, in Latin; the 
Greek buthidzo, kataduo, pontidzo, dupto (dip), katapon- 
tidzo, immerse, never mean to overflow ; neither the Ger- 
man sinken, tauchen, ein, and undertauchen. As "over- 
flow" can not come from dip or immerse, yet does come 
to be a derived meaning and a literal meaning of bap- 
tidzo, immerse or dip can not be the primary meaning of 
baptidzo. 

We have now traced every occurrence of baptidzo from 
its appearance in literature by Pindar, five hundred and 
twenty-two years before Christ, to Aristotle — covering one 
hundred and thirty-eight years — dating the birth of each. 
We are giving the facts first ; the philology is yet to ap- 
pear more fully. Note — 

(1) For one hundred and thirty-eight years it occurs 
only in a metaphorical sense. 

(2) During all these years it always implied affusion, 
application of the baptizing element, never implying the 
application or sinking of the object into the element. 

(3) The first time in which it occurs in a literal sense 
it is the application of the water to the object baptized, by 
the greatest of all Greek scholars. 

(4) It is used by him as equivalent to a word that pri- 
marily means to bedash or sprinkle with water, as when 
it is sprinkled suddenly or forcibly in the face or on any 
part of the body. That is its most common use. 



230 BAPTISM. 

4. The next occurrence is in Eubulus, a Greek comic 
writer, about B.C. 380. It is difficult to determine in what 
sense he uses it: "Who now the fourth day is baptized, 
leading the famished life of a wretched mullet," a notedly 
hungry, always empty fish, according to fable. Whether 
the person was for the fourth day clinging to some part 
of the wrecked vessel, starving for three days, bap- 
tized often by the waves dashing upon him, we can not 
say unless we had more of "the fragment." It points 
that way as far as it goes. There is but the one oc- 
currence. 

The quotation "falsely attributed to Heraclides Pon- 
ticus " in this century belongs to a much later date. See 
Conant, p. 34. 

5. Evenus of Paros* is the next, B.C. 250, Epigram: 
" If [Bacchus] breathe strongly, it hinders love — i. e. if a 
man is completely intoxicated, love's amours are defeated; 
for he [Bacchus] baptizes with a sleep near to death."f 
" Here is the metaphorical sense of the word," says Stu- 
art, who renders it " overwhelms." From Pindar to this 
poet two hundred and seventy-two years intervene, yet 
baptidzo never yet occurs meaning to dip or immerse. 
Polybius, born B.C. 203 or 205, comes next — a prose-writer. 
From the times of Pindar to those of Polybius sum up 
three hundred and seventeen to three hundred and nine- 
teen years. During all these stormy and changy times 
baptidzo never had been used for dip, for plunge, for im- 
merse, but always points infallibly to affusion. 

Baptidzo may have been in use hundreds of years 

* Evenus, xv, in Jacob's Anthol., p. 99 ; M. Stuart, p. 61 ; Conant, 
p. 58. 

t B(nrT%ei 6' virvu — not, as nearly five hundred years later Clem. Alex, 
has it, he vttvov, into sleep. 



ANCIENT CRITICISMS — ERRORS. 231 

before we meet with it in the literature that has survived 
the waste of ages, but in its earliest use as known to us 
we have enough to show its primary meaning aside from 
the facts brought out on bapto. Among its prevailing 
classic meanings are intoxicate, overwhelm, overflow, pour 
over or upon, of words, then the effects of wine, ques- 
tions, water. We know that none of these meanings can 
be derived from dip or immerse. That has been perfectly 
tested. They are constantly in all languages derived 
from words primarily meaning to sprinkle, to pour, to 
moisten, bedew, etc. All the facts connected with bapto 
point out the same results. 



232 BAPTISM. 



CHAPTER XIX. 

Classical Usage — Summary of Facts. 

Immersionists hold that the prevailing meaning of a 
word is its primary meaning, regarding not earlier occur- 
rences at all, ignoring all the laws of science and word- 
building, development of language. But is immerse — 
English, sink — or dip the prevailing meaning of baptidzo 
even in the classics ? We will test the matter by them- 
selves. 

1. T. J. Conant, D.D., renders baptidzo out of sixty- 
three consecutive occurrences — 

(1) "Whelm" forty-five times; "overwhelm" eight 
times=fifty -three times; while in those sixty -three con- 
secutive occurrences he does not render it dip, the thing 
they do in baptism, once even, and "immerse" only ten 
times! 

(2) After p. 73, baptidzo is compounded with preposi- 
tions and does not apply properly. All the cases of bap- 
tidzo simply, then, are one hundred and forty-one, of 
which only seven times does he render it dip ; i. e. one 
hundred and thirty-four against seven in his favor. 

(3) These seven cases are not correctly rendered. 

(4) Out of the one hundred and forty-one times, it is 
rendered by him immerse only thirty-five times, making 
one hundred and six against thirty-five for immerse. 

(5) These are partly false renderings, as Aristotle on 
the "overflowing" of the land, etc. 



CLASSICAL USAGE — SUMMAEY OF FACTS. 233 

(6) Not one of them has the meaning; in not one of 
the one hundred and forty-one cases does baptidzo describe 
or apply to the action that constitutes their baptism. 

(7) Conant renders baptidzo by fourteen different words, 
giving it fourteen definitions! Yet they say "there is 
absolutely no word in the Greek language of more uni- 
vocal sense than the word baptize" (Address by Dr. 
Eaton, bound up in Conant's work). Surely this was 
meant for a huge joke. 

(8) He only finds thirty occurrences of the word before 
the birth of Christ that he can date, allowing a margin 
for that number. These he renders — 

(9) One "dip" out of the thirty; i. e. twenty-nine 
against one for "dip." 

(10) Only thirteen "immersions;" that is, seventeen 
against thirteen. 

(11) Several of these, as Aristotle's, are wrong, leaving 
dip clear out, and immerse maimed forever. 

2. Dr. Gale, the great Baptist of a former century, thus 
renders it: "Dipped in" once; "dip," three times; "laid 
under," once ; " over head and ears," once — a peculiar verb, 
no doubt, very "univocal"; "drowned," one time; 
"drowns and overwhelms," once; "sink," ten times; 
" immerse," three ; i. e. eighteen against three for im- 
merse ; eighteen against three for " dip," or twenty-one 
versus one " dip in." 

3. M. Stuart, when summing up for immerse, a Con- 
gregationalist writing by request of Baptists, of forty-one 
cases it is — 

(1) One " dip," six " plunge," seven " sink," one " im- 
merge," three "immerse," one "overflow," twenty-two 
" overwhelm." That is — 

(2) Forty against one " dip," or, 

20 



234 BAPTISM. 

(3) Thirty-eight against three immerse ! 

(4) Twenty-three cases " overflow " and "overwhelm," 
of application of the baptizing element to the object, 
against one " dip," the word expressive of the baptism of 
our opponents. What is the prevailing meaning? Is it 
the primitive ? 

4. Prof. J. M. Pendleton, D.D,* out of twenty-two 
occurrences renders it — 

(1) Plunge, eight times ; dip, one ; sink, five ; overflow, 
one ; immerse, two ; overwhelm, five ; i. e. 

(2) Twenty against two for immerse — ten to one against 
immerse ! 

(3) Twenty-one against one for dip ! ! 

(4) " Overflow " and " overwhelm," six times, pointing 
to affusion, against one for " dip." Does the prevailing 
meaning indicate the primary? 

5. A. Campbell shall be heard from. In Christian 
Baptism, his greatest work, he renders baptidzo: 

(1) Sink, ten times; immerse, three; overflow, one; 
dip, not at all; "overwhelm," ten times; i. e. 

(2) Twenty-one against three for immerse. 

(3) Twenty-four against not one for " dip ! " 

(4) "Overflow" and "overwhelm" eleven times against 
no dip — all pointing to affusion. 

(5) He gives through his renderings, version, and quo- 
tations introduced, leaving out the parts he does not like, 
twenty different renderings to baptidzo. 

Surely it is a simple word — " ttnivocal." 

CLASSICS — SUMMARY OF FACTS. 

6. Ingham, later than Conant, in his large work, 
Hand-book on Baptism, London, though he had A. Camp- 

* " Why I am a Baptist," from pages 97 to 100. 



CLASSICAL USAGE — SUMMARY OF FACTS. 235 

bell, Carson, Gale, Conant, Booth, etc. before him, gives 
us this result : Omitting the Bible and Apocrypha cases, 
as being the ones in dispute to be determined — "sub- 
merge," one; "play the immersing match," one; i. e. 
"dip," one. He renders it "overwhelm" fifty times out 
of one hundred and sixty-nine cases. Here we have it 
meaning "overwhelm" fifty times to dip once, and one 
hundred and sixty-eight to one dip! "Immerse" is his 
favorite rendering. "It always means to dip" — means 
"nothing else" — yet means to dip only one time in all its 
occurrences through fifteen hundred years ! 

7. Dr. Carson renders it "immerse" three times; 
"sink," seven times; "plunge," two times; "dip," three 
times; "baptize," fourteen times; "put into," one time; 
" drown," one time — in all thirty-one proof-texts. Here 
we have twenty -eight against three for " immerse." We 
have twenty-eight against three for dip ; twenty-nine against 
two for plunge. Yet it "always means to dip" ! 

If I have counted accurately, the sum of all is four 
hundred and fifty-seven against eighteen for dip ! By the 
unanimous renderings of the great masters themselves we 
have baptidzo meaning something else over twenty-five 
times to every one time it means dip — over twenty-five 
against one ! 

With the facts from the classics and these renderings, 
we are prepared to test the matter by the laws of language. 
These renderings are far more valuable than the render- 
ings of lexicons, because, first, these men, though far less 
learned in Greek than the lexicographers, were far more 
learned in the literature of this word. A lexicographer 
can not afford to devote but a few moments to the study 
of each word, all being equally important to him. But 
these men devoted years to this one word ; second, they 



236 BAPTISM. 

are its special friends. They have a theory to support, 
and many of them a very restricted, and, as some think, 
an intolerant, proscriptive theory, that unchurches millions 
of the most pious of God's people, and they start out with 
the assumption that baptidzo in the classics describes the 
exact action of their rite — that it always means to dip. 

Dip always implies withdrawal to the extent of pene- 
tration. Immerse is sink, sink in, with no withdrawal 
implied. 

1. We have seen that all the earliest uses of baptidzo 
were in support of affusion. Yet in Pindar, Aristophanes, 
Alcibiades, Evenus, poets all, it is applied to aspersing 
people with abusive epithets, as well as in Demosthenes. 
But nothing is more common to Greeks, Latins, He- 
brews,* Arabs, Germans, Americans, and English than 
this habit; and words meaning to pour, to sprinkle espe- 
cially, are most common, while immerse is not so used at 
all. Hence these facts establish sprinkle as the primary 
meaning of baptidzo. 

2. The Hebrew words for immerse, the Greek (often 
repeated by us), hataduo y etc., the Latin mergo, im-, de-, and 
sub-mergo, never mean, are never employed for to abuse 
or sprinkle, bespatter one with epithets or words ; hence 
baptidzo could not have primarily meant immerse, merse, 
or dip, since the above meanings can not be derived there- 
from. 

3. Baptidzo means, in the oldest of all prose-writers 
known to employ it, Plato, to " overwhelm," so rendered 
by all immersion authors and by the lexicons, being used 
metaphorically by Plato, born b. c. 429. But " over- 

* See also Deuteronomy xxxii, 2 : " My doctrine shall drop as the 
rain, my speech shall distill as the dew, as the small rain upon the tender 
herb, and as the showers upon the grass." 



CLASSICAL USAGE — SUMMARY OF FACTS. 237 

whelm " can not be derived from dip, as a proper word, or 
immerse, sink. Philologically it is absurd. Baptidzo does 
come to mean "to overwhelm," often. Overwhelm can 
not come from dip; hence dip could not have been the 
primary meaning of baptidzo; nor from immerse; hence it 
could not have been the primary meaning of the word. 
We never apply " dip " to a case effected by overwhelm- 
ing. 

4. Dr. Conant renders baptidzo "whelm" forty-five 
times between pages 43 and 72. But "whelm" can not 
be a meaning derived from dip, neither from immerse; 
hence neither of those words expresses the original mean- 
ing of baptidzo. 

5. The earliest occurrence of baptidzo in a literal 
sense is in Aristotle, and means literally " to overflow." 
But " overflow" never is derived from a word that prima- 
rily or properly means to dip, nor from immerse. Neither 
dip nor immerse was the primary meaning of baptidzo, 

6. Baptidzo often means to " intoxicate," " make 
drunk." Dip and immerse do not mean to intoxicate, it 
is never derived from such primaries; therefore they never 
could have been primary meanings of baptidzo. Neither 
immerse — in Hebrew, Arabic, Persic, iEthiopic, Syriac, 
Greek, Latin, German, nor English, neither in tongues 
Aryan nor Semitic — nor dip ever comes to mean to make 
drunk. Mergo rarely applies to the effect of wine, to sink 
under its effects. 

7. Dip is urged by all immersionists as a leading mean- 
ing of baptidzo. But dip never can be derived from im- 
merse; they as wholes imply opposites in action. Hence, 
if dip be a meaning, the word never could have primarily 
meant immerse. 

8. Immersionists, such as Drs. Gale, Ingham, Cox, 



238 BAPTISM. 

Mell, Halley (and Conant gives many proofs), acknowl- 
edge that baptidzo and baptisma are used by Greeks where 
the baptism is effected by " superfusion " — i. e. pouring 
upon. But "dipping" can not be so accomplished, nor 
can "superfusion" be derived from dip, much less from 
immerse. Hence dip and immerse never were primary 
meanings of baptidzo. 

9. Baptidzo means "to wash." All are agreed here.* 
The immersionists all make it the effect of dipping in 
water — that it is a figurative or derived meaning. But — 

(1) Immerse never means to wash in any language on 
earth. It is never a meaning by figure or by fact, if the 
proper words for immerse in Greek, Latin, Hebrew, or 
English. Mergo, immergo, demergo, submergo, the words 
themselves, never mean wash. Neither of the six or 
eight Arabic words given that properly and strictly 
mean to immerse, means to wash. The same is true of 
the Greek pontidzo, dunai, buthidzo, Jcata-pontidzo, hataduo, 
all meaning definitely to immerse, to sink, sink in. The 
English sink, the German sinken, eintauchen, undertauchen, 
do not mean to wash, nor cleanse, no more than dip, 
tunken, tauchen, and the Greek dupto, dip, kolumbao, dip, 
dive, stand in the same list. 

(2) Neither has immerse any necessary or philological 
relation or necessary connection with wash, as things are 
most generally washed in nature by the water coming in 
contact with them, and by infinite odds mostly by sprink- 
ling and pouring. Every leaf, herb, tree, spear of grass, 
rock, hill, house, fence, all things in nature are constantly 
washed, cleansed from soiling, defiling elements by the rain. 

(3) Indeed immerse as often applies to things that de- 

* See proofs under Chapter VII on the Laver, and see Index — 
Wash. 



CLASSICAL USAGE — SUMMARY OF FACTS. 239 

file, corrupt, soil, as to purifying elements. Things are 
immersed in filth, mud, hog-styes, filthy pools, stenchy 
vats, sinks of all kinds. 

(4) Nay, merely dipping or immersing in clear water 
does not necessarily wash or cleanse, does not at all. 
Merely dip a dirty garment in clear water and you will 
make poor headway in washing it, especially by one single 
dip. 

10. Again, baptidzo meant wash two hundred and eighty- 
three years before Christ, as 2 Kings v, 10, 14, shows. 
It was interchanged with louo and its noun lutron, wash- 
ing, cleansing, in the Apocrypha two hundred and thirty- 
five years before Christ, we know, and most likely much 
earlier. It was interchanged with Mudzo, wash, besprinkle, 
etc., in the Apocrypha likewise. But baptidzo never took 
on the meaning of immerse till the middle of the second 
century before Christ — about one hundred and fifty years 
before Christ — in Polybius, who was born two hundred 
and three to two hundred and five years before Christ. 
That was a rare meaning, though, and continued as a mi- 
nority meaning, as the immersionist renderings show. No 
lexicon gives immerse as a meaning of baptidzo supported 
by an authority earlier than Polybius. Most of them cite 
Plutarch, long after the birth of Christ, as the first, some 
Diodorus Siculus, later than Polybius. We have seen 
that Polybius, Plutarch, and Diodorus Siculus wrote after 
the great breakdown and change in the Greek language 
also. 

Wash, therefore, antedates immerse as a meaning of 
baptidzo from at least one hundred and twenty-five to one 
hundred and fifty years, if not fully three hundred years. 
Hence it is impossible that wash or cleanse should be de- 
rived from immerse as a meaning of baptidzo. 



240 BAPTISM. 

11. Again, baptidzo means to "overflow" in Aristotle, 
which was one hundred and seventy-nine years before it 
came to mean "immerse." Hence immerse can not be an 
early, not to say primary, meaning of baptidzo. 

12. Of all the words properly meaning to immerse in 
Hebrew, tabha, haphash, shapo; eight in Arabic extensively 
used, gamara, gamasa, atta, etc. ; in Persic, ghuta; JEthiopic, 
maaby maba; in Greek, buthidzo, kataduo, etc., etc.; dupto, 
dip, immergo, etc. in Latin, none of these proper words for 
immerse ever mean to abuse, slander, defame, simply be- 
cause asperse, pour upon, are not in their primaries nor in 
them any where. 

13. While these facts infallibly prove that neither dip 
nor immerse nor plunge was the primitive meaning of 
baptidzo, they all point out sprinkling as that meaning. 
In addition to these facts another great truth settles the 
question : 

All the meanings belonging or claimed to belong to 
baptidzo in classic or New Testament and apocryphal 
Greek do constantly belong to a great number of words in 
Greek, Latin, Hebrew, Arabic, etc. that do by agreement 
of all authorities belong to words that primarily mean to 
sprinkle, to others that primarily mean to moisten where 
it is effected by sprinkling, to bedew, to wet, to rain. On 
the contrary, in no instance does a word in these languages 
that properly means to immerse or primarily to sink, 
plunge, or dip have the meanings that belong either in the 
classics or New Testament and apocryphal Greek to 
baptidzo. 

14. In Chapters XII and XIII we have seen over fifty 
words that illustrate this — words not used for baptism in 
the Bible. They are in Latin, such as tingo, from Greek 
tengo (or tenggo y rey^a)), madeo, madefacio, perfundo, as- 



CLASSICAL USAGE — SUMMARY OF FACTS. 241 

pergo, taking on more or less the meanings of bapto and 
leading ones of baptidzo; Greek deuo, brecho, kludzo, kat- 
antleo; a host of Semitic words, many beginning with 
sprinkle, mean to wet, cleanse, pour, wash, saturate, intox- 
icate, dip, immerse. In no instance is the law reversed. 
From sprinkle to immerse we saw the way was natural, 
historic, constant. Words meaning to bedew, moisten 
take on stronger meanings and come to mean soak, intox- 
icate, saturate, dye, dip, immerse. Others primarily mean- 
ing sprinkle come to mean to pour, applied to water, to 
rain, which falling washes the millions of trees, shrubs, 
all vegetable growths, fences, houses, of accumulated dust, 
soot, excrescences that can be thus removed; hence to 
wash. Pouring rains "overflow,'' cause to "overflow/' 
"inundate," " overwhelm. " Overwhelming objects may 
and often does cause them to sink — be immersed; hence 
the next meaning is immerse, submerse. This we found 
illustrated often. Overwhelming some objects causes them 
"to dip," as a vessel often does; hence naturally comes 
that meaning. 

Under bapto we saw that from sprinkle comes stain. 
We saw it abundantly in Chapter XIII. Thence we saw 
that it comes to apply to coloring, dyeing in any way ; hence, 
in the easiest and best way, by dipping into the fluid the 
thing to be dyed. From dipping for color they learned 
to let it remain in for some time, i. e. immerse. Hence, 
sprinkle is demonstrated to be the primary meaning of 
both words. 

15. We saw that baptidzo in its earliest known occur- 
rences applies to bespattering people with abusive epi- 
thets — pouring a torrent of invectives. We know noth- 
ing is more common than for people to say such a person 
" poured a torrent of abuse upon me ; " such a slander or 
21 



242 BAPTISM. 

report " is a foul aspersion." We never saw it foul dip- 
ping, foul immersion. Hence the primary use of the word 
was for aspersion. Constantly, then — 

16. Words meaning to sprinkle primarily, in great num- 
bers, cover all meanings of baptidzo ; words for immersion 
never do ; hence it is absolutely certain that sprinkle was 
the primary meaning of baptidzo. 

17. Let it be remembered now how seldom baptidzo 
represents "dip" in the house of its friends; how seldom 
immerse ! That only in the later Greek it came to mean 
immerse at all. That these authors — the two or three who 
use it for immerse — lived from the middle of the second 
century before Christ down in remote centuries from 
those in which the apostles were educated; that it so 
occurs in a foreign secular literature unknown to their 
education, their early instruction ; that in their own lit- 
erature it always meant wash, cleanse, used religiously. 
And had they followed classic usage, the prevailing and 
earliest use of it was in the sense of affusion, and the most 
renowned and learned Greeks never used it for either dip 
or immerse, as seen by immersionists themselves, but in 
the sense of affusion. 

18. In accordance with these facts, gathered from the 
chosen fields of our opponents, we turn to still another 
illustration, never noted by any writer any more than 
were the preceding facts, viz : In the period B.c. 570, tzeva 
(baptize in Syriac, Chaldee, and Arabic) occurs for the 
first time in history or literature (Dan. iv, 12, 20, 22, 
30; v. 21). Nebuchadnezzar's body was baptized with the 
dew from (apo) heaven, rendered (conspergatur) sprinkled 
by Jerome as well as wet. See details under Versions. 
Later by centuries this word, to sprinkle, means to wash 
in the Targums. It nowhere occurs in Hebrew, notwith- 



CLASSICAL USAGE — SUMMARY OF FACTS. 243 

standing Gesenius assumes meanings for it for immerse 
when there never was such a word in Hebrew so far as 
literature goes ! ! Later still it came to apply to a partial 
dip, and still kept up its meanings, wash and sprinkle, as 
the Targums in Psalm vi, 7 ; the Syriac Luke vii, 38, 44; 
Ezekiel xxii, demonstrated. Yet immersionists contend 
it means nothing but immerse in the seventh century after 
Christ, in the Arabic version.* 

19. Shataph (*"]-?)> already noticed, "a pouring rain," 
"overflowing rain;" first means "to gush, pour out;" 
second, in Leviticus, fifteen hundred years before Christ, it 
means to wash every time it occurs, applied to what the 
New Testament writers call baptism ; third, later in the 
Prophets, it is to wash, overflow, overwhelm, but never 
immerse; fourth, later still, in the sense of overwhelm, 
almost altogether; fifth, then later still, in the third 
century after Christ, it means mainly to immerse, sub- 
merse. See the latter use, Castelli Heptaglotton, sub. v. 
B5& = r|trt? in ^Ethiopic. 

IS DIP IMMERSE? 

Immersionists insist that dip is exactly synonymous 
with immerse. Dr. Graves, late as 1876, rewriting his 
speeches, Debate, 527, says, "All lexicons give dip and to 
immerse as synonymous terms." Italics his. In reply we 
say : 

1. All English standards giving the real meaning and 
early usage of the two words make a clear and perfect 
distinction between them.* 

* In Carrollton Debate, as written by Dr. Graves, he says tseva is 
baptize in Syriac — dip. (See the full quotation on Versions.) 

* Webster, 1878, " Dip. 1. The action of dipping or plunging for a 
moment into a fluid." Again, he defines it "to put for a moment into 



244 BAPTISM. 

2. All lexicons clearly bring out a marked difference by 

(1) Defining words that have various meanings, as 
moisten, wet, dip, immerse, by various Latin words — in- 
tingo for dip, immergo for immerse. 

(2) Words that mean strictly and always to immerse, 
demerse, they always define by mergo, immergo, de- and 
submergo, never by intingo, dip, much less by tingo. See 
many examples already given. Where tabha, immerse, 
e. g. is defined, Gesenius, Castell, Schindler, Hottinger, 
Stokius, Leigh, all use immergo, immersit, not one gives 
tingo or intingo. No lexicon gives tingo or intingo for 
kaphash, immerse, or for Arabic atta, ghuta, amasa, im- 
merse, though they repeat the mersit, de-, and immersit 
over and again, sometimes fifteen and twenty times, giv- 
ing examples. So of buthidzo, katapontidzo, kataduo, im- 
merse. Nor do Kouma and Gazes, uative Greek lexicog- 
raphers, in defining these words use dupto or bapto, dip. 

3. Neither do Kouma and Gazes use dupto, bapto, in 
Greek to define baptidzo, though they use buthidzo, im- 
merse, sink. 

4. Nor will this bold and popular assumption by im- 
mersionists bear comparing with the words for immersion 
in the Bible. A. Campbell, Conant, Wilkes, Graves, Gale, 
Carson, etc. all render immerse into English by sink. In 
Psalm lxix, 2, in the Hebrew, it reads, " I immerse — sink 
— in deep mire." Was he dipped in it? Psalm ix, 15, 
reads in Hebrew and Greek, " The heathen are immersed 

any liquid." Webster, 1871, gives the true meaning of dip, as used in 
James's version, and those times — "to insert in a fluid, and withdraw 
again" (Lev. iv, 6). He thus gives the meaning of immerse— "Im- 
merse [Lat. immersus, etc.], immersed ; buried, hid, sank [obs.]. 'Things 
immerse in matter ' " (Bacon). Here is the true, literal force of immerse 
— it had no other force till the loose style of Baptists introduced its pres- 
ent uses which, of course, dictionaries have to follow. 



CLASSICAL USAGE — SUMMARY OF FACTS. 245 

— sunk down in the pit that they made." Were they simply 
dipped in it? Exodus xv, 5, in Hebrew and Greek, reads, 
" They immersed — sank — into the bottom as a stone." Did 
they simply dip into the bottom, "withdrawing" immedi- 
ately? In verse 10 the same reads, "They immersed — 
sank as lead in the mighty waters." Were they merely 
dipped ? In Matthew xviii, 6, the Greek reads, " It were 
better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, 
and that he were immersed in the depth of the sea." 
Would dip do there ? 

5. Let us put it dip where Dr. Graves and others ren- 
der it immerse, sink. Example 39 in Conant, "And al- 
ready becoming immerged (baptized) and wanting little of 
sinking" — of a ship. Render it now, "And already be- 
coming dipped and wanting little of dipping," etc. Ex- 
ample 22, Debate, p. 237, of ships and the crew — "And 
were submerged (baptized) along with their vessels." 
Were the vessels that submerged merely dipped ? Exam- 
ple 4, Debate, p. 207, " Certain desert places . . . which, 
when it is ebb-tide, are not baptizesthai — immersed, bap- 
tized, but when it is flood-tide are overflowed." Were the 
"desert places" dipped? Scores of examples could be 
added. Let these serve as samples. 

6. All ancient and all more modern versions act by the 
same rule. They never render bapto, e. g. by immerse, 
etc. or submerse, but by tingo, intingo, aspergo in Latin, 
and by corresponding words in all other versions. As 
mergo, immergo are words so common in Latin, why in all 
the Bible in so many versions did they not use them if 
tingo, intingo were the same as mergo, etc. ? 

Let us now examine the Semitic words that definitely 
and strictly mean to immerse in current use, and notice 
their original import as well. 



246 BAPTISM. 

1. Gamasa* in Hebrew means to burden; in Arabic to 
hide, conceal, perplex, obscure, evade, hide; then, from 
burden, to immerse, and currently has that meaning. 

2. Gamara,\ Arabic, to press, compress, yet constantly 
it means to immerse, demerse, submerse. 

3. Amatha, J Arabic, to be heavy; then commonly to 
demerse. 

4. Dul, dala,§ Arabic, to depress; then commonly to 
immerse. 

5. Gar a ^f (Hebrew, gur), to descend, depress, immerse. 

6. Atta, || to oppress, press down; then, common, to 
immerse, demerse. 

7. Kaphash* * to press down, immerse. 

8. Shakah, f f shaqa, to depress, compress ; then im- 
merse, submerse, especially. 

9. p??]> tabha, Hebrew, Syriac, Arabic, all give "to 
impress." Syriac, " primarily to impress." Buxtorf gives 
" to press, impress or fix in, be immersed, demersed," etc. 
From impress comes the meaning to cut or coin money. 
Webster's Dictionary runs wild here after Gesenius's crude 
method, but were his position regarded as sound it, too, 
would add strength to our facts here; but we regard his 
views here as unsound as to tap, tupto, strike, etc. 

1. Notice, not one of these words gives dip, intingo, or 
tingo, or wash, etc. as a meaning. 

2. They show the true idea of immerse — sinking under 
a pressure, not involving, like dip, immediate withdrawal. 

TINGO. 

As tingo figures in these discussions, we prefer to pre- 
sent the leading facts in this connection that all may de- 
*Dtt2 tiiM> truss §?ki Y®> II &3> **tfso tfypti 



CLASSICAL USAGE — SUMMARY OF FACTS. 247 

termine for themselves. While immersionists have made 
a most forced use of this word generally, Dr. Graves, in 
his last three speeches on Mode, outHerods Herod in the 
perverseness of his statements, though not a word of all 
there said was said in the debate, but written down de- 
liberately in his room in Memphis, with my manuscript 
speeches violently usurped, and most dishonestly held in 
violation of all the agreements of the parties publishing — 
all being Baptists, in the same house with Dr. Graves. 
Out of hundreds of cases of his daring assertions — they 
refusing to send to me a single proof-sheet of it, all re- 
written with quite all he did say thrown out, all the 
speeches being new matter unseen by me, hence could not 
be anticipated — we present one sample case before we take 
him upon tingo. After citing Maimonides on washing 
several times, on page 493 he cites him again, and Dr. 
Alting thus: "Whence the Jews observe that whenever 
a command occurs for washing the clothes, the washing of 
the whole body is either added or understood." Now Dr. 
Graves immediately adds of me, " He [Ditzler] declares 
to you that i no rabbi on earth says so.' Was not Mai- 
monides a rabbi?" Now turn to page 460, whence he 
copies my words, and see the willful perversion. There I 
state that " Dr. G. says the ' most learned rabbins tell us 
that invariably in the Hebrew purifications where rachats, 
1 to wash/ is spoken of, either of the clothes or of the per- 
son, the whole body must be immersed in water.' They 
do no such thing. No rabbi on earth says so." Here I 
assert that no rabbi on earth says in all these cases the 
person " immersed in water." Dr. Graves now changes 
it to " wash the whole body," and makes my words apply 
to denying that ! ! On the same page we gave the facts 
and words of Rabbi M., showing they meant wash, as 



248 BAPTISM. 

Alting, his own authority, renders him, but which Drs. G., 
Wilkes, and all immersionists most unjustly render "dip" 
and " immerse." 

Continuing to rewrite his speeches, knowing I would 
not be allowed to see and refute the glaring and reckless 
assertions (p. 429 of the Carrollton Debate), he says, as 
to lexicons defining by tingo, that I " was rendering those 
meanings which those old lexicographers indicate in Latin 
by tingo by ' to sprinkle ! ' In this respect Elder Ditzler 
has ignorantly, if not intentionally, misrepresented every 
lexicon he has quoted." On page 432 he pretends that my 
" sprinkle " in Tertullian is from " tingo" Dr. G. had 
my speeches before him, and in the lexicons he had them 
before him in print — clear type. Hence he knew that every 
word he uttered above was untrue, and most flagrantly so. 

He knew that not in a single lexicon cited in all the 
debate, had I rendered tingo sprinkle, but moisten, wet, 
stain, as the author meant, as pages 197, 438, 88, 378, 
27-30, abundantly show, and on Tertullian (pp. 244, 245, 
197). 

On page 482 he says, " Faustianus [misprint for Fersti- 
anus], whom Dr. Beecher quotes as undoubtedly using 
tingere in the sense of ' to dip/ my opponent makes him 
say 'to sprinkle/" 

Here are two glaring statements which Dr. G. could 
not help knowing to be flagrantly untrue. 

1. Beecher quotes and translates tingo in Fiirst by wash, 
and " to moisten "* in other places, as I have done. I 
render it " dip " also. 

* Beecher on Baptism, p. 69 : " Fuerstius, in the learned lexicon, de- 
fines tabhal, rigare, tingere, perfundere, and last of all immergere. To 
wet, to wash, to perfuse, to immerse." On page 16 B. quotes Faeciolatus 
and Forcellinus and Leverett, who " give it the sense [of] to moisten, to 
wet." Thus is this bold and false statement exposed. 



CLASSICAL USAGE — SUMMARY OF FACTS. 249 

2. Dr. G. says I render it " sprinkle." He knew bet- 
ter. It was the German " begiessen," in the Latin of 
Fiirst " perfundere" that I rendered sprinkle, just as 
Rabbi Wise, immersionist, and S. Davidson, one of 
the most learned scholars of this century do. Dr. 
G. renders the same word, "perfundere " " besprinkle." 
Beecher, in the same sentence referred to by Dr. G., ren- 
ders it " perfuse," i. e. besprinkle. 

On page 473 he says again, " Whenever Elder Ditzler, 
therefore, translates it (tingo) by i to sprinkle/ when lexi- 
cographers give tingo, intingo, mergo, immergo, as the pri- 
mary definition of the Hebrew taval, or of the Greek 
verbs bapto, baptidzo, or the Syriac amad, he most grossly 
perverts those authors, and he does it ignorantly or in- 
tentionally, nor can he escape the alternative." Dr. G. 
here — 

1. States what he knew to be without a shadow of truth 
from beginning to end, as my speeches (pp. 27-30, 88, 197, 
438-9, 405, 551) so abundantly show; and they were then 
all under his eye — in his hands. 

2. He displays an ignorance that is as incurable as it is 
unendurable by saying that lexicographers define baptidzo 
and the Syriac amad by tingo, when not a single lexicon 
extant does so. Sophocles puts the patristic use of tingo 
in his lexicon without translating it. Schaaf s Syriac lex- 
icon gives tingo as a meaning of the Arabic word amada, 
not of the Syriac amad; nor does any Syriac lexicon we 
have ever seen define amad by tingo. Page 313, Dr. G. 
quotes Scapula as defining baptidzo by "item tingo" Page 
363 I corrected him as well as on his rendering, page 338, 
yet after this, page 432, he says, " Prof. Toy " says " the 
lexicons frequently give tingere for baptizein. As to this, 
it is agreed that Tertullian and other Latin writers use 



250 BAPTISM. 

tingere always in the sense of to immerse." We are 
not surprised at any statement Dr. G. should make, unless 
he should for just once tell the truth as to any of these 
matters, but we had a right to expect better things of 
Prof. Toy. 

TINGO — DR. GRAVES AND TOY ON. 

1. Prof. Toy says, a The lexicons frequently give tin- 
gere for baptizein." Let him produce one that does so. 
He can not do it, save the one single work of S., just 
named, who does not give tingo as a definition, but sums 
up the Latin patristic use of it, not translating his words 
even. We point out these facts, not that it is against us, 
for tingo helps us far more than them, but we do it to ex- 
pose the want of care and truth in these parties. Ste- 
phanus shows that the Latin fathers use tingo for baptize, 
but he does not define it by tingo for good reasons. Tingo 
oftener means to stain, tincture, color, dye than any thing 
else really, though moisten be its primary Latin meaning, 
and hence no standard lexicon would stultify itself as Drs. 
Toy and G. do. 

2. Prof. T. says, " It is agreed among scholars that T., 
etc. use tingere always in the sense of immerse." This is 
utterly untrue, as we will show in due time. 

Page 527 Dr. G. says, " All lexicons give to dip and to 
immerse as synonymous terms, as the Germans give mergo, 
immergo, and tingo as synonymous of baptidzo." 

1. If they give tingo as synonymous with baptidzo all 
the better for us. 

2. No German lexicon in existence gives tingo as a 
meaning of baptidzo in any case. 

3. No German lexicon gives dip, or tingo, as synony- 



CLASSICAL USAGE — SUMMARY OF FACTS. 251 

mous with immerse, sink, for the reason that they have 
learning, sense, and honesty. 

TINGO — DR. GRAVES ON — JEROME ON. 

Dr. Graves (Debate, p. 433) says, " Jerome in the Latin 
Vulgate, as in all his writings, invariably uses tingo as the 
Latin synonym of the Greek verb bapto, to dip." 

1. If this was truthfully said of Jerome it would of it- 
self show how absurd and untrue are all the above asser- 
tions about tingo being the synonym of baptidzo ; for where 
in the New Testament or any where is bapto used for bap- 
tism or as the synonym of baptidzo f 

2. The statement is utterly untrue in all respects — ut- 
terly untrue. Bapto occurs in the common Greek text of 
the New Testament only three times, viz. Luke xvi, 24; 
John xiii, 26; Eevelation xix, 13. Embapto occurs in 
Matthew xxvi, 23 ; Mark xiv, 20. Some copies have it 
embapto in John xiii, 26 — Tischendorf, Lachmann, etc. 
Now Jerome renders the above three occurrences as fol- 
lows : 

Luke xvi, 24, intingat; John xiii, 26, intinctum, intinx- 
isset (and embapto he renders intingo every time) ; while 
the third occurrence of bapto, Revelation xix, 13, he ren- 
ders thus: Et vestibus erat veste aspersa sanguine — and he 
was clothed with a vesture sprinkled with blood. In other 
words, bapto occurs only three times in the Greek New 
Testament, and Jerome renders it sprinkle in one third of 
its occurrences, but never renders it in all the Bible by 
tingo. 

3. If tingo be the synonym of baptidzo, why does not 
the Itala, Jerome, Beza, and the dozen other Latin ver- 
sions I have by me render baptidzo by tingo at least once 



252 BAPTISM. 

in all the Bible? for not one of them does so, neither by 
intingo. Such is Dr. Graves's reliability ! 

LEXICONS ON TINGO. 

Let us now cite the standard lexicons in order on this 
much-abused word. As it is derived from the Greek 
tengo, as Carson justly tells us and all scholars know, we 
begin with the lexicons on the original. And as Drs. 
Graves, Wilkes, Campbell, etc. so parade the primary 
meaning and assume that the first meaning presented is 
the primary, we may hope they will not fly from their own 
positions. 

1. Groves: "Tengo (rsy/w^ to moisten, wet, water, 
sprinkle, bedew." 

2. Liddell & Scott: "Tengo, to wet, moisten, to bedew 
with, especially with tears; weep, to shed tears, a shower 
fell, . . . III. To dye, stain ; Latin, tingere" etc. 

3. Stephanus: "Tengo, to moisten, to make wet," with 
tears, dew, rain. 

4. Pape: "Tengo, moisten, wet, shed tears."* 

5. Passow: "Tengo, moisten, wet, shed tears." 

6. Eost and Palm: "Tengo, to moisten, to wet, to shed 
tears," etc. 

Let us now have the Latin lexicons on this word, as 
spelled in Latin, translated immerse and dip always by 
Drs. Conant, Graves, Wilkes, etc. : 

1. Andrews: "Tingo, to wet, to moisten, (B) to soak or 
color, to dye, color, tinge." 

2. Freund: "Tingo, to wet, moisten, tengo, brecho, hu- 
graino, [moisten, shed tears, rain, sprinkle, water, sprin- 
kle], to moisten, to bedew, to bathe, wash, dip in, plunge, 
immerse ; color, stain, tinge, tint." 

* Benetzen, anfeuchten, Thranen vergiessen. 



CLASSICAL USAGE — SUMMARY OF FACTS. 253 

3. Ainsworth: "Tingo, first, to dye, color, stain; sec- 
ond, to sprinkle, to imbrue; third, to wash; fourth, to 
paint." 

4. Anthon: "Tingo, moisten, wet," etc. 

5. White: "Tingo, moisten, wet," etc. 

This is making poor headway to show that tingo is 
synonymous with immerse. 

6. Ovid: "Tingere, wet the body with sprinkled 
water." * 

7. "And seems to sprinkle with briny dew the sur- 
rounding clouds." f 

Here in both cases tingo is defined in its effect by 
sprinkle — by a Latin who lived in the apostolic age. 

8. "By chance his hounds, led by the blood-stained 
track." I 

Was the ground immersed or dipped in the blood of 
the wounded stag? 

9. Calvin : " It is of no importance whether all who 
are baptized [tingati] are immersed [mergantur\, and that 
thrice or once, or water is only poured on them."§ 

Here Calvin, as all the fathers writing in Latin, uses, 
as Cyprian, Tertullian, etc. did, tingo for baptize, just as 
Germans do taufen, we baptize; and when he expresses 
the different modes in which we could be baptized — tingo 
— he gives immerse and pour water on them. One more 
father. 

10. Archbishop Sebastian, of Metz: "Then let the 
priest take the child in his left arm, and holding him over 
the font let him with his right hand three several times 

*Ovid, Met. vii, 599: Tingere corpus aqua aspersa. 
t Ovid, Met. xi, 498 : Et inductus aspergine tingere nubes videtur. 
t Sanguine tincta suo (Ovid, x, 713). See Louisville Debate, page 
430, where many such texts are given, the fruit of much research. 
§ Institutes, lib. iv, chap, xv, sec. 19. 



254 BAPTISM. 

take water out of the font and pour it on the child's head 
so that the water (aqua tingat) wets his head and shoul- 
der." * 

Notice here the mode is given ; the water is " poured 
on the child so that it (tingat) wets his head and shoul- 
ders." Tingo is the effect of the pour. 

11. Ovid: "Let us wash (tingo is the word) our naked 
bodies with water poured upon them." f 

(1) Here the mode in which tingo is effected is again 
given — the water is poured upon the naked bodies. 

(2) It shows the manner of ancient baths. 

(3) Drs. Graves, Toy, etc., as well as Carson, say that 
tingo is equivalent to baptidzo in the lexicons and the 
Latin fathers, Tertullian, Cyprian, Jerome, etc. Conant 
renders it immerse constantly also as well as Wilkes. 

(4) All these are as literal uses as language can offer. 
They are real persons, washed with real water, literally 
poured upon them. 

12. Horace: "And wet (tinguet) the pavement with 
wine." What was the mode of tingo here where wine 
was let fall on the pavement? 

13. Ovid : J "He beat the ground, stained (tinctam) with 
guilty blood." 

14. Calpuronius: "To wet (tingere) the pastures with 
dew." Here the dew falls on the pastures and (tingo) wets 
them. What was the mode? 

Aside from hosts of like citations, Fiirst uses tingo in 
his Latin lexicon to define the word that in his German 
lexicon is defined by benetzen — wet. Schindler, Castell, 

* Wall, i, 577 : Aqua tingat caput et scapulas. 
t Nuda superfusis tingamus corpora lymphis. 

% Hamum : Scelerato sanguine tinctam. I reread Ovid to select from 
him, because he was contemporary with the apostolic period. 



CLASSICAL USAGE — SUMMARY OF FACTS. 255 

etc. use tingo constantly where it is with tears, dew, rain. 
We have always frankly stated, also, that in some cases 
tingo means dip, plunge. And Dr. Graves cites such cases 
as if it were a contradiction ! Have we not given cases 
where hosts of words mean to wet, moisten, nay, to sprinkle 
and pour, that also mean to dip, etc.? What do such par- 
tisans hope for, or what excuse can they render for such 
conduct ? 



256 BAPTISM. 



CHAPTER XX. 

Baptidzo, Sink, Immeese, Speinkle — Why do not 
We Teanslate? — Why do not They Teanslate? 

As scholars all agree, it is rare, if ever, that one word 
exactly represents or is the exact equivalent of another. 
But where one word, as wash, purify, cleanse, for baptize, 
occurs, it does necessarily represent all the meaning, and 
no more of the word than the last limiting word con- 
tains. It limits the other word altogether to what is 
necessarily contained in that word. This becomes the 
more decisive when the words occur a great many times 
by the same school of writers, yet is invariably thus used. 
Thus baptidzo is wash, cleanse, or purify wherever its rit- 
ualistic import or design is referred to in the Bible. Eph. 
v, 26 ; Titus iii, 5 ; Heb. x, 22 ; Acts xxii, 16 ; John iii, 
22-25 ; Ps. li, 2-9, etc. See above. The entire force or 
meaning baptidzo was intended to have in the New Testa- 
ment is contained in the words cleanse, wash, or purify. 
Inspired men in the above texts thus limit its force. It is 
in this view that baptidzo as referring to the Christian rite 
can not be represented by any modal word — immerse, dip, 
sprinkle, pour — because in the Christian use no one of 
those words represents necessarily the wash, the cleanse, 
the purify of baptidzo. Sprinkle could and did represent 
the mere daily baptisms of Mark vii, 4, being mere tra- 
ditional sprinklings. 

But it is said we will not translate baptidzo by sprinkle 



BAPTIDZO, SINK, IMMERSE, SPRINKLE. 257 

in the New Testament. Why not translate it by a plain 
English word, sprinkle, and not transfer, merely Angliciz- 
ing the Greek word baptidzo f Answer — 

1. Wherever the solemn rite of Christian baptism oc- 
curs in the New Testament all ancient versions that were 
in languages kindred to the Greek — all that allowed of it — 
transferred the word in all such cases. This was the uni- 
versal practice from the old Itala, the Coptic, the Vulgate, 
on through the centuries till the days of King James, in- 
cluding the Italian, Spanish, French, Lusitanian, Wye- 
liffe, from the Vulgate, Tyndale, 1526, and the four or five 
English versions, with James's as the last. 

2. In every place in the New Testament where the rite 
of baptism with water is mentioned, not Christian, but 
Jewish baptism, it can be rendered sprinkle, and is the 
correct rendering (Mark vii, 4; Luke xi, 38). 

3. Hence the two best and most ancient copies of the 
Bible known, copied nearly sixteen hundred years ago, 
with a number of later manuscript copies, render it 
" sprinkle themselves " in Mark vii, 4. See Versions, for 
all the facts here. 

4. There is that in the solemn rite of Christian bap- 
tism, as just shown, that no mere modal word can repre- 
sent. Baptidzo obtained a significance that no mere word 
of action could represent in Christian baptism. 

WHY NOT TRANSLATE INTO ENGLISH? 

5. No immersionist does render baptidzo by a plain 
English word throughout the New Testament. They have 
never done it and never will do it, putting it in the text as 
a rendering. They carefully put it in an Anglicized Latin 
word — immerse, the English of which is to " sink in," 

22 



258 BAPTISM. 

"sink." In the Louisville Debate, p. 566, we elaborate 
this fact, saying, " Now, immerse, simply and literally and 
always, means to sink, sink in. This is the English." 
Elder Wilkes replies, p. 574, " He tries very hard to prove 
that mergo, immergo, . . . mean to sink. I believe him. 
I will save him trouble on that subject by telling him that 
I know that these words mean to sink." Again, p. 599, 
he brings it up again and says, " We have Anglicized im- 
merse from mergo, immergo. It is not necessary for us to 
give a definition of this word [immerse] now. We know 
what it means; we are agreed about that." A. Campbell 
renders baptidzo sink over and again. See where the 
renderings are detailed. 

Dr. J. E. Graves, Carrollton Debate, p. 520, "All the 
Latin fathers, . . . one and all, understood baptidzo to sig- 
nify mergo , immergo, tingo, intingo, to sink in," etc. Page 
389 he has it " sinking in," and often so. 

Now apply that rendering throughout the New Testa- 
ment. "Came John, the sinker-in." "I sank in none of 
you but Crispus," etc. " Go, disciple all nations, sinking 
them in in the name," etc. 

Hence, ancient copyists render it by sprinkle for bap- 
tize. 

When it appears, as has been shown, that long before 
baptidzo came to mean to immerse it was taken by the 
Jews to mean to wash, purify, and thus limited in relig- 
ious use (Eccles. xxiv, 25 ; Judith xii, 7), this of itself 
settles that question. When bapto came to mean stain, 
color, though in earliest usage it was always by affusion 
(see it fully demonstrated in Chapters XI-XIII), yet 
when it came to mean stain, color, it soon came to apply 
to coloring where the art of dipping in the fluid was prac- 
ticed. It applies where the fluid is sprinkled on, drops 



BAPTIDZO, SINK, IMMERSE, SPRINKLE. 259 

on the garments, and where the garments are dipped. 
Hence, when bapto is used for stain, it does not imply any 
particular mode, but only implies the force or necessary 
limitations of stain in whatever way it may be effected. 



260 BAPTISM. 



CHAPTER XXI. 

Baptidzo in Aristotle, etc. 

1. We have traced baptidzo from its first appearance in 
literature among the Greeks, so far as that literature has 
survived, down to Aristotle, B.C. 384, covering a period 
of one hundred and thirty-eight years. 

2. In all this period it occurs only in a metaphorical 
sense, pointing to an earlier literal use. 

3. In all cases the usage demonstrates that it was as 
yet never used for dip, never for immerse. 

4. It demonstrates that it primarily meant to sprinkle, 
thence to pour, thence to wash, to saturate, to drench as 
the eifect of pouring water. Thence it came to mean to 
soak, intoxicate, make drunk. From pour came overflow, 
overwhelm. From overwhelm came sink, as a later mean- 
ing still. From sink came drown, as its effect. 

Let it be remembered that no lexicon in existence gives 
to baptidzo the meanings dip or immerse till Polybius, 
Diodorus Sicilus, Strabo, and Plutarch. 

ARISTOTLE, B.C. 384. 

Aristotle uses baptidzo only once in all his writings, so 
far as found. 

" Certain places full of rushes and s^a-weed, which 
when it is ebb-tide are not overflowed (mae baptidzesthai), 
but at full-tide are overflowed" (katakludzesthai). 



BAPTIDZO IN ARISTOTLE, ETC. 261 

1. Let this case be very carefully examined, for it is 
the first time in Greek literature in which we come upon 
the word used literally. 

2. It is used by the most accurate and careful and 
learned of all Greeks. 

3. It is interchanged with another word, used in ex- 
actly the same sense, both rendered by "overflow," as 
Stuart, A. Campbell, etc. render it. 

4. There is no dip here ; no one will venture to render 
it by dipped. 

5. It is not immerse. "The places," lands subject to 
overflow, did not sink, did not merse or immerse ; but — 

6. The literal water came upon the land. The baptiz- 
ing element came upon the object, baptizing it. Whether 
every part of the land was overflowed by the water we 
can not know. All the reasonable probabilities are that, 
like all other average districts of country of like kind, 
parts were overflowed, parts, higher spaces, were not. Yet 
the whole is baptized. 

7. The most valuable point, though, is the light this 
literal text throws on the philology of the word. Over- 
flow is a literal meaning of baptidzo in Aristotle's day. 
Overflow can not be derived from dip as a primary mean- 
ing. Hence dip never was a primary, nay, never was a 
meaning of baptidzo at all. 

8. Further, baptidzo is interchanged with perikludzo. 
Perikludzo is rendered sprinkle by Stephanus and others.* 
Passow gives wash, bedash, wet, for Uudzo. Groves gives 
for perikludzo, " Wash all round or all over, dash water, 
sprinkle all over." 

Liddell & Scott : Kludzo. See on former page. 
Glosses: To sprinkle. f 

* Buddaeus and Stephanus have TrepiKlvofxari, periklusmati, aspergine. 
t Aspergo, per/undo. 



262 BAPTISM. 

Here is a word — kludzo — that primarily applies to such 
aspersions and inspersions as sprinkling water over the 
body, dashing it on the face, washing out the ears, and 
from which our noun clyster is derived, coming to mean 
overflow and to inundate and baptidzo, used in exactly 
the same sense by the most learned of all Greeks. 

7. Eubulus, B.C. 380, comes next. He uses the word 
once, its sense altogether uncertain, and hence we omit it. 

8. Evenus, B.C. 250, uses it once, " Wine baptizes with 
stupor or sleep" (omB, hupno). This is a metaphorical 
use again and has no dip in it.* 

9. Polybius now appears, born about B.C. 205. He 
wrote about B.C. 150 or 160, say. He is the first Greek 
who uses baptidzo for immerse, the earliest cited by any 
lexicon for such a meaning. Next, about B.C. QQ to 33, 
Diodorus Siculus ; then, later, Strabo, and a.d. 90 Plutarch 
uses it at times for overwhelm, at times for immerse, 
i. e. sink; then still also for intoxicate, etc. 

These writers do not write in the ancient, classic style, 
but are the introducers of a coarse, greatly-modified style 
of Greek, as Liddell & Scott in the introduction to their 
lexicon tell us. But long years and centuries before this 
baptidzo was used for the religious washing of the Jews, 
and its religious import and action settled before the word 
came to mean immerse. It never does mean to dip, as we 
saw. 

* If any one urge that, at least we may say, one sinks in sleep, so 
may we say, " Pour delicious slumber o'er mine eyes." Poets often use 
pour for such an idea. And there is no dip. 



BAPTIDZO IN LATER GREEK — CONANT. 263 



CHAPTER XXII. 

Baptidzo in Later Greek — Conant. 

In addition to the facts adduced, we will copy a few 
later cases adduced by Dr. Conant as the strongest cases 
in favor of his immersion theory. In his "Baptizein" 
we select — 

1. Page 10: "And those of the submerged (baptized) 
who raised their heads, either a missile reached or a vessel 
overtook " — "their heads being raised."* 

Not one of these parties was totally under the water. 
Conant translates it " submerged." He tries to make 
them rear their heads after being " submerged." No such 
thought or fact is in the Greek. " But the elevated heads 
of those baptized either a missile reached or a vessel cap- 
tured." Though these parties were partly immersed the 
heads, with of course a part of the shoulders, were above 
the water. In that condition some were shot with their 
missiles, others were captured. There was no complete 
envelopment. 

2. Plutarch (Conant, p. 11) : "A bladder, thou mayest 
be immersed (baptized) ; but it is not possible to thee to 
sink." f The Greek reads, "A bladder, thou mayest be 
baptized, but it is not fated to thee to be immersed." 
Drs. Conant, Campbell, Carson, Gale, Graves, all use the 

* Twv 6e PairTtodevTuv rbvq avavevovraq fj (HeXog iifSavev, ij ff££<Jta mre- 
7idfj,6ave. 

t Aonbg ^aTTTi^ri • Lvrvat 6e toi bv -&E(iOQ iar'w. 



264 BAPTISM. 

English sink for the Latin immerse in its Anglicized 
form, and Conant conceals the truth constantly by a 
play upon those words. Why render baptidzo there by 
immerse, and dunai, which always means immerse, by 
the English word sink ? The bladder was baptized, but 
would not go under. We know they will not go under 
of themselves. This is just the kind of classic baptism 
as the other preceding it in Josephus, save that the man 
mersed deeper in the sea- water than the bladder. Neither 
was enveloped, covered. 

3. Conant, 11, 12, Ex. 25: "The soldiers . . . dipping 
(baptizing) with cups, and horns, and goblets, from great 
wine-jars and mixing-bowls." Who believes the cups, 
goblets, and horns were entirely submerged in the wine? 
But there are some strange points here. Where was ever 
baptidzo used for "dipping horns" or any thing else? We 
have seen, all admit, that baptidzo is used often, commonly, 
for becoming drunk, intoxicated, etc. Hence it reads, 
"The soldiers becoming drunk — intoxicated — out (ek) 
of great wine-jars,"* etc., "with cups and horns, and 
goblets," " along the whole way were drinking to one an- 
other." The ek, "out of," forbids dip as the meaning 
here. 

4. Ibid, 18 : "And already becoming immerged (bap- 
tized) and wanting little of sinking, some of the pirates at 
first attempted to leave (the vessel) and get aboard their 
own bark." 

(1) Here to conceal the facts so patent the doctor ren- 
ders baptidzo by "becoming immerged," and immerse, in 
Greek, he renders again by sink, the English of immerse. 
And this in face of his just admission and statement that 
baptidzo implies as complete sinking where the parties 

* 01 (jrpancjrat (3a.7rTi£ovTeg ek rrcdcov fteyafajv. 



BAPTIDZO IN LATER GREEK — CONANT. 265 

perish, as dunai, contrary to Suicer, Pasor, Beza, whom A. 
Campbell follows. 

(2) The Greek reads, "And already being baptized and 
wanting little of being immersed* (katadunai), some of 
the pirates at first attempted to leave (the vessel) and get 
aboard of their own bark." 

(3) If the baptidzo immersed the vessel — completely 
enveloped it — i. e. if it put it entirely under the water — 
why did it not go to the bottom at once, as all vessels do — 
ships — whenever they by such calamities go clean under? 

(4) Why does the writer say that although the vessel 
was "already baptized/' yet it was not yet "immersed/' 
yet " wanting little of being immersed." Dr. C. will not 
deny that immerse is the literal meaning of katadunai. 

(5) Though the vessel was "already baptized/' yet the 
parties are consulting, talking together, about leaving the 
ship. How could this occur among a part of the pirates if 
the vessel had "already been immersed" — wholly envel- 
oped under water? 

5. Conant, p. 20, Ex. 42: "'The whole sword was 
warmed with blood ' (Homer) ... as if the sword were 
so imbathed (baptized) as to be heated." This is a later 
Greek writer commenting on the ancient Homer's words, 
the former using the words "warmed with blood," the 
latter baptized with blood. 

(1) Baptize here is not immersion. 

(2) It was by effusion — the blood gushing out on the 
sword. 

(3) Conant then commits the unpardonable literary sin 
of rendering Homer's stronger word, " hupethermanthw" 
by "warmed," and the tamer critics less intense word 
thermanthcenai by "heated"! The Greek is, "As if the 

* "Hdrj 6i (3airTi$ofJ.£vov ital Karadvvai fiiupbv aTroXeiirdvTuv. 

23 



266 BAPTISM. 

sword were so baptized [with blood — haimati] as to be 
warmed." * Surely the blood that flowed from the pierced 
head of Echelusf did not immerse "the whole sword." 
It is a clear case of effusion of blood on the sword. 

6. Conant's 69th Example, p. 33, is his strongest for 
"dip." "Casting a little of the ashes [of the burnt 
heifer] into a fountain and dipping (baptizing) a hyssop 
branch," etc. In this case — 

(1) Dr. Conant changes the ordinary reading of the 
Greek text, which can not be allowed. 

(2) Conant admits that the copyist of the Greek text 
has been guilty of "an error in copying." He thinks 
"the common reading" of the Greek | shows the same 
thing. But he renders it differently, " immerse," not dip, 
by indorsing the Latin scholiast. Unquestionably the 
Greek he and Bekker make is wrong, as it violates the 
whole tenor of Greek usage. His own Greek, given in 
the note, which is "the common reading," is, "and bap- 
tizing some of the ashes into the fountain ; " pouring or 
immersing them into the fountain, whichever rendering 
you prefer, it equally suits my present object. It is not 
dip. The hyssop is not the object of baptidzo by this 
"common reading." And were it so, it would be clear 
evidence that the error of the copyist was in putting it 
baptidzo for bapto. 

7. Ibid. 22 : "He did not plunge in (baptize) the sword, 
nor sever that hostile head ! " The Greek is, " not even 
to sever that hostile head." Clearly the word here is not 

* Uav <P VTTedepjxdvdr] l-ityoq aifiari . . . ug re ■frepfiavdyvai. 

t Homer's II. xxii, line 476, on which the unknown writer com- 
ments, using baptidzo. Homer never uses it. 

X Which begins thus : BaTrriaavTeg re nal rijg recpag ravrrig slg irrfyrp — 
which an old author he indorses renders — ejusdemque cineris oliquantu- 
lum in aquam immergentes. But this is infinitely different from dipping. 



BAPTIDZO IN LATER GREEK — CONANT. 267 

"plunge in," as if point foremost, but edge foremost, to 
"sever the head" from the body. In cutting off the head 
no one plunges in a sword point foremost. We know how 
a sword is used in cutting off a man's head. Baptidzo 
here expresses (Chrysostom) this act. Immersion, en- 
velopment is out of the question. 

8. Ibid. 23: "And that the immerged (baptized) ship 
beyond all hope is saved, is of the providence of God ; " 
"in the sudden coming as of storm or tempest." Clearly 
this "immerged ship" is not "immerged." If the bap- 
tidzo put it clear under, it never was saved or could be. 
It is baptized by the waves dashing upon it, but not im- 
mersed. That the baptized ship "contrary (or against 
hope) is saved " — rap iXnida. Yet C. puts it, " beyond all 
hope." It is not there. Where is the "all" in the 
Greek? 

9. Conant, p. 32: "And dipping (baptizing) his hand 
into the blood, he set up a trophy, inscribing it," etc. 

(1) Suppose we were to accept this rendering, it does 
not prove their theory of immersion; for there is no evi- 
dence from their rendering that complete envelopment of 
the hand in the human blood took place. 

(2) There is every reason to suppose it did not take 
place, for who would immerse their entire hand in blood 
merely to have blood on a finger with, which to write an 
inscription on a trophy? 

(3) It is long after Christ, and therefore belongs to the 
later, corrupted Greek. 

10. Ibid. His 50th Example, pp. 23, 24, is more than 
doubtful as to a total immersion. 

11. (Josephus 33): "He plunged (baptized) the whole 
sword into his own neck." 

No im mergence, no total envelopment here. 



268 BAPTISM. 

12. Ibid. 34: "Immerse (baptize) it (the pessary) into 
breast-milk and Egyptian ointment." The ancient Egyp- 
tian pessary or " blister-plaster " was wholly different 
from the pessary of modern science and wholly different 
in application. It was compounded of " honey, turpen- 
tine, butter, oil of lily or of rose, and saffron, each one 
part, with sometimes a small quantity of verdigris"* and 
used as a blister. It was baptized with, or wetted par- 
tially in the " milk of a woman " — that is the Greek, f 
Immersion was not necessary nor possible. 

13. Ibid. 34. His 71st Example is rendered, like many 
others, to conceal the facts. " The mass of iron drawn 
red-hot" was "by the smiths" (plural), and is " baptized 
with water " to " quench its fiery glow." Such a large 
mass of iron, red-hot, is not plunged into water to be 
cooled. It is against plunge. Such "a mass of red-hot 
iron " plunged into water would throw quite all the water 
out and all over the smiths, baptizing them. 

14. "Plunge (baptize) the sword into the enemy's 
breast." No total envelopment here (p. 37, ibid.). 

15. Ibid. 38 : " Plunge (baptize) his right hand in his 
father's neck." The hand or weapon in it was not likely 
to be enveloped, completely submerged in his father's 
neck. 

Conant, p. 2, Example 2 : " But most of them (ships 
of the Romans), when the prow was let fall from on high, 
being submerged (baptized) became filled with sea-water 
and confusion." 

If "submerged" how could the people become con- 
fused and the vessel fill up with sea-water ? ■ The ships 
evidently became partially overwhelmed, sea-water ran in 

* 'Ef yaXa ywautbg. 

t Dunglison's Med. Dictionary, p. 37. 



BAPTIDZO IN LATER GREEK — CONANT. 269 

in great quantities, and the Romans became confused 
thereby. But how could men fighting on a vessel, as 
they did in that day, remain on deck in a state of confu- 
sion or nonconfusion after the vessel was sunk clear under 
water, " being submerged " ? 

Now, the above texts are all copied from the literal 
use of baptidzo presented by Conant (though one or two 
at least, if not three or four are not literal cases), clearly 
showing that even in classic, yet Iron-age Greek after 
baptidzo came to mean to immerse, it still, in that age, 
did not generally or often apply to complete immersions ; 
and that to express complete immersion they generally 
supplied, as seen, dunai, hatadunai to express that idea. 

Another point is clear, that wherever baptidzo does 
completely immerse a living object it perishes. 

That " whelm," " overwhelm," and such uses of 6ap- 
tidzo point to affusion — the element descending, falling on 
the object — may be seen further by the very words used, 
clearly pointing out this fact. Take from Dr. Conant the 
following examples : 

Page 79, Example 162: "Achilles Tatius : For that 
which, of a sudden, comes all at once and unexpected, 
shocks the soul, falling on it unawares, and whelms (bap- 
tizes)." * Here, first, the word baptidzo is much strength- 
ened with a preposition far stronger than merely the 
word uncompounded ; second, the mode is defined— the ele- 
ment that baptizes (katebaptize) does so by " falling on it." 
Where is the dip, where the plunge, where the sink here? 

Page 66, Example 136, Dr. Conant quotes Philo : "As 
though reason were whelmed (baptized) by the things 
overlying it." f Here the things that rest or fall upon 

* *A0vw TTpoairecdv nal KaTeOaTTTure. 
t T6*c eircovoi, the things upon it. 



270 BAPTISM. 

(epi) the reason, "food and drink," baptize it, "resting 
upon it." 

Tatius (Conant, p. 26, Example 56) : " The blood . . . 
boiling up through intense vigor, often overflows the 
veins, and flooding (perikludzo) the head within, whelms 
(baptizes) the passage of reason." Here is affusion, not 
dipping. 



BAPTIDZO IN PATRISTIC GREEK. 271 



CHAPTER XXIII. 

Baptidzo in Patristic Greek. 

We introduce baptism among the fathers by citing 
Clemens Alexandrinus, A.D. 190. 

• " But purity is to think purely. And indeed the 
image * of the baptism [of the Bible] was handed down 
from Moses to the poets thus — 

" ' Having besprinkled herself with water, having on 
her body clean garments, Penelope comes to prayer.' f 
'But Telemachus, . . . having washed his hands at the 
hoary sea, prays to Athene ' (Minerva). This custom 
(ethos) of the Jews, as they also often baptize themselves 
upon a couch, is well expressed also in this verse, 'Be 
pure, not by washing, but by thinking.' "J Here — 

1. Sprinkling the water on herself before prayer was 
an image (eikdn), likeness, of the baptism taught in the 
Bible. 

2. " Sprinkled herself with water." The word is com- 

* Elkcjv, image, not cbfiSolov, symbol, but image, 
t Odyssey iv, 759, is where he cites Homer. 

% Ayveia 6e ectl (ppoveiv beta ml 6fj ml tj elkcjv rov (ia-KTiajxarog eiq av ml 
rf ek MuvcEog Trapa6e6ojxevr] rolg 7roi7jralg tide irug. 

'H (T vdprjva/iEvq mdapa %poi zip.ar' sxovoa. Odys. iv, 759. 

'H HeveX6Tr7} ttjv kvxv v lpx tTaL ' 

iTjMfMaxog tie . . . 

Xelpag vL<pdp.evoq rrolif/c aloq, evxet' AQIfvrj. Odys. ii, 261. 

'~E8og tovto 'lovdaiuv, uq ml to no?CkaKiQ etzI /coiry ftaTTTi&adai. 

~Ev yovv kclke'lvo eiptjrai' 

'ladi fit] Aovrpii, aWka v6u m6ap6q. Clemens Alex, i, 1352. 



272 BAPTISM. 

pounded of huder, water, and raino, to sprinkle. Liddell 
& Scott's Lexicon renders the word " to pour water over 
one's body."* 

3. Washing the hands at the sea was an image of bap- 
tism. Where was the immersion in these cases? 

4. It was the custom of the Jews to " baptize often 
upon a couch " — not after the couch, not (apo koiiaes) from 
a couch, but (epi Jcoitae) "upon a couch." The suggestion 
of some that it refers to purification after pollution upon 
a couch is far-fetched and against the grammatical force of 
the words. 

5. Clemens precedes the sentence with these words: 
" In like manner they say it becomes those who have washed 
themselves (leloumenous) to go forth to sacrifices and prayer 
pure and bright." The suggestion of Carson, followed by 
Elder Wilkes, makes (epi Jcoitae) "upon a couch" refer 
to sexual relations. But both Penelope and Telem- 
achus were preparing for prayers, not baptizing because 
of or from sexual defilement, neither having been thus 
polluted. Indeed the poets knew nothing of that rite. 
The custom Clemens refers to was one taught not merely 
by Moses, but by the poets, and he tells us what it was as 
practiced in the poets — they sprinkled themselves with 
water. And here he uses raino, nipto, louo, and baptidzo 
all for the same thing — baptism. We have seen in the 
laver argument what the washing of the Jews was.f 

*Aovrpa vdpavaodai XP " 1 - (Eur. El. 157), to water, to sprinkle with 
water, to pour out libations; mid., to bathe, wash oneself (L. & S. on 
same). 

tHervetus, a Greek, who translated Clemens, and was his commen- 
tator, knowing all the facts, says, " The Jews washed themselves, not 
only at sacrifices but also at feasts, and this is the reason why Clement 
says that they purified or washed upon a couch; that is, a dining-couch 
or triclinium. To this Mark refers, chap, vii, and Matthew, chap. xv. 



BAPTIDZO IN PATRISTIC GREEK. 273 

BAPTISM OF THE ALTAR. 

In Origen, on John i, 25, we read, " How came you 
to think that Elias, when he should come, would baptize, 
who did not baptize the wood upon the altar in the days 
(times) of Ahab, although it needed purification [or cleans- 
ing — loutrori] in order that it might be burned when the 
Lord should be revealed by fire ; for this [baptizing the 
wood upon the altar] was ordered to be done by the 
priests." * 

Now let us cite the facts referred to by the learned 
Origen, born only some eighty-three to eighty-five years 
after John the Apostle died, found in 1 Kings xviii, 
31-35, 38 : "And Elijah took twelve stones, according to 
the number of the tribes of the sons of Jacob, unto whom 
the word of the Lord came, saying, Israel shall be thy 

Tertullian refers to it when he says, "Judaius Israel quotidie lavat — 
daily washes." 

The only argument relied on for such far-fetched assumption as 
that of Carson is, Clemens had page 1184, nearly two hundred pages 
apart — curb t?iq Kara cv^vyiav KoirrjQ . . . ftanTi&odai — to "baptize from the 
couch on account of sexual intercourse. This is as different from the 
other as day is from night. 'And is not kirl, as Carson assumes. Koirr) 
is not Kolrr/g, much less is Kara av^vyiav, which latter is the word for sex- 
ual intercourse. " Baptize cnrb from a dead body," and " from the mar- 
ket" (Mark vii, 4); "sprinkle curb from an evil conscience"; "Baptize 
yourselves cnrd from anger, malice, covetousness," etc. (Chrysostom). 
That is Greek. But were it ettc, it would be infinitely different. Sexual 
intercourse is not expressed by e-kI ko'ltti any where in the world. In 
Origen's rendering of Genesis, Jacob sat upon his couch — ettc ttjv koIttjv. 
Opera Omnia, vol. 2, p. 145, ed. 1862. 

• Origen : Tiddsv 5e vfdv 'KETxicTEvrai 'H/lmv (iaTTricEiv tov e?^evc6/ievov } 
olds' ra ettX to. tov -&voLacTT]piov f-iila, Kara rovg tov 'A%aa6 xP^> V0V ^i dso/ueva 
Xovrpov, Iva EKnavdri, EiutyavEvroc; ev irvpl tov Kvpiov, (lairTicavTOc; ; £7tikeX- 
EVETat yap to'ic; hpEvat tovto iroiijoat, ov p.6vov airat;, IkyEi yap, etc. . . . 6 
Toivov fii) aWbg (SaTTTioag t6te } k. t. A. nug naTO. to, vtto tov MaAa^/ov 7iEy6[iEva 
ETridijfiTjoac; ftaTZTi^Eiv EfMElls (Orige?iis Opera Omnia, Tomus Quartus, vol. 
4, p. 231, 1862). 



274 BAPTISM. 

name: And with the stones he built an altar in the 
name of the Lord; and he made a trench about the 
altar, as great as would contain two measures of seed. 
And he put the wood in order, and cut the bullock in 
pieces, and laid him on the wood, and said, Fill four bar- 
rels with water, and pour it on the burnt sacrifice, and on 
the wood. And he said, Do it the second time. And they 
did it the second time. And he said, Do it the third time. 
And they did it the third time. And the water ran round 
about the altar; and he filled the trench also with water. 
. . . Then the fire of the Lord fell, and consumed the 
burnt sacrifice, and the wood, and the stones, and the dust, 
and licked up the water that was in the trench." 

Basil, A.D. 310, says of this event, " Elias showed the 
power of baptism on the altar. . . . When the water . . . 
was for the third time poured on the altar, the fire began. 
. . . The Scriptures hereby show that through baptism," 
etc. Other fathers speak of it as baptism. This is enough. 

Notice now — 

1. It was "the wood upon the altar" that was " bap- 
tized." 

2. Elijah had the priests who brought the water to 
"pour it on the burnt sacrifice and on the wood." 

3. Origen says they " baptized the wood on the altar." 

4. Basil says he showed the power of baptism on the 
altar, "when the water . . . was poured on the altar." 

But immersion ingenuity is not wanting even in so 
clear a case as this. A. Campbell suggests, following the 
astute Carson, that twelve barrels of water " overwhelmed " 
the altar, submerged, " as it were," the altar. Indeed ! Let 
us see into this. 

1. It was an altar built of stones on the top of a moun- 
tain — Carmel. 



BAPTIDZO IN PATRISTIC GREEK. 275 

2. It was during the great drouth — every thing burn- 
ing up. 

3. Wood was then laid upon the altar of stones, enough 
for an ox to be laid thereupon. 

4. A slaughtered ox was placed upon the altar thus 
built, " on the wood." Now, how could this altar, or the 
wood on it, be immersed ? Where is the " plunge " ? 
Where is the immerse, sink in? Where is the "dip"? 
Where is the action, the specific action ? Where is the 
mode ? the " burial," cover up ? But we are not done. 

5. No such vessel as our barrel was known then. The 
word* in the Hebrew (kad) never means barrel. Except 
the place where the widow had a measure of meal hid 
away in a barrel, and this place, it is never rendered bar- 
rel, and in that place it means pitcher — enough meal to 
make a little cake only being hid. No lexicon, no ancient 
version ever rendered it barrel. No scholar will ever con- 
tend that it has any such meaning. The ancient Greek 
version has it bucket, water-pot, or pail. Gesenius, Fiirst, 
and all others define it, "bucket, pail, both for drawing 
water and carrying it." Gregory Nazianzen expresses it 
exactly, alluding to this baptism : " Cast [the water] over 
it from water-pots." Four pitchers or rather buckets of 
water were poured on this altar and the ox three times 
repeated. Before the second or third bucket could be 
poured on, the first would run off. Where is the " over- 
whelm"? But— 

6. The little trench dug around the altar had to be 
filled with extra water. " And he filled the trench also 

* "Q. kad, Wy^ kadim, pitchers, never means barrel, and is never so 
denned in any version of antiquity, or in any lexicon we ever saw. It 
occurs in Genesis xxiv, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 43, 45, 46, where Rebekah 
draws water out of a well with one; so Judges vii, 16, 19, 20; Ecclesi- 
astes xii, 6, "pitcher"; 1 Kings xvii, 12, 14, 16, " barrel." 



276 BAPTISM. 

with water" (1 Kings xviii, 35). The trench held (sabhib) 
one and a half peck measure. 

7. After the water had been poured on, the trench 
filled, still "dust" was found under and about the altar. 
There could have been no overwhelming with water, there- 
fore. The fire consumed the dust, and licked up the water 
that was in the trench. These are the facts. Twelve 
buckets of water, only four at a time, or one at a time till 
four were poured on, then a pause, then repeated, never 
immersed, dipped, or plunged the altar, nor the wood on 
it. All together doubled, quadrupled, would not do it. 
They did baptize the wood, the altar. Wilkes, dodging all 
the above facts in the debate (p. 576), urges for a an over- 
whelming. That altar and that victim were as drenched, 
or as wet, or soaked with water" as if " immersed." Alas, 
how was he drenched with water? It was "poured." The 
wood was baptized, not " as it were " " overwhelmed." It 
was baptized. O, but Wilkes says, " a man comes out of 
the rain, and we say he is drenched." " It means an over- 
whelming." Not exactly. No one speaks of a man merely 
drenched in rain as overwhelmed. But what was the spe- 
cific water, the mode of his drenching? He is baptized; 
you say drenched. It is a literal act, a literal drenching, 
a literal person and rain ; no metaphor here. How was he 
baptized? "The water was poured," says Mr. Wilkes. 
Yes, and so baptized the object. Origen is commenting 
on John i, 25, 26, where they thought Messiah would bap- 
tize. It is of baptism practiced under Christ he is dis- 
coursing. It is literal, therefore. The water was poured 
out of water-pitchers on the wood that was on the altar 
of stones, on the dry and parched heights of Carmel. As 
immersionists insist so earnestly that " baptidzo always 
means to dip," " expressing nothing but mode," let them 



BAPTIDZO IN PATRISTIC GREEK. 277 

apply " dip " here. How came you to think Elias would 
dip . . . who did not dip the wood upon the altar? in the 
face of the fact that literal water was literally poured by 
"literal" men, out of "literal" water -pitchers, upon the 
literal wood of the literal altar, baptizing it? 



novatian's baptism. 

No one case of baptism in all history has been so per- 
verted by immersionists as the case of Novatian, a. d. 
251. After I published the original Greek in Louisville 
Debate (p. 590), with a literal translation, it is pleasant 
to see Dr. Varden, of Kentucky, publishing to his Bap- 
tist brethren a translation, word for word as my own, tell- 
ing them how incorrect were the partisan uses made by 
false renderings of this passage. Here is a literal render- 
ing of the passage : " To him, indeed, the origin [or au- 
thor] of his profession was Satan, who entered into and 
dwelt in him a long time ; who, being assisted by the ex- 
orcists, while attacked with an obstinate disease, and being 
supposed at the point of death, received it [baptism] in 
the bed on which he lay, by being sprinkled — if indeed it 
is proper to say that such [a wicked] person received it," * 
baptism. 

1. Not a single doubt is thrown on the mode of this 
baptism. "He received it" — elaben. 

2. It was by sprinkling. 

3. When he recovered he never was rebaptized, never 

*'i2 ye (KpopjJLTj tov iriOTevoai yeyovev 6 oa.Ta.vaq, tyoiTrjoaq elg avrov nal 
otKTjoag ev avrct xpovov ixavov, bg ^orjOov/xevog vtto eiropKiOTtov, vdoo) rrepnreouv 
XareTzij^ /cat a-rooaveiodai boov bvdsTra) vofii^b/xevoq, ev avrt] rrj KTiivrj ij eneiTo, 
TrzpiXvQuq ekahev el ye XP% heyeiv tov eWrity'evai. Eusebius, Eccles. Hist., 
b. vi, chap, xliii, p. 401, sec. 15 ; Recensuit Edwardus Burton, Oxonii, 
etc., 1838, vol. 1. 



278 BAPTISM. 

was asked to do so, nor complained of by any one for not 
doing so. Had any doubt existed as to the mode of his 
baptism they could readily have baptized him. 

4. If baptism is immersion, how could they say, " He 
received immersion by being sprinkled ! " 

Scott (immersionist) copies it from Baptist sources 
thus, " He received baptism, being sprinkled with water 
on the bed where he lay, if that can be called baptism ! " 
No such phrase as the last occurs in the Greek. The ton 
toiouton is masculine, and refers to the wicked person, not 
to baptism, as the merest tyro in Greek can see. 

As immersion ists have so perversely quoted the action 
of a council on this — Neo Caesarea, Canon 12th — we quote 
the favorite immersionist historian, Neander (vol. 1, p. 
338, revised edition of Torrey, 1872) : " Its object [the 
ecclesiastical law] was simply to exclude from the spirit- 
ual order those who had been induced to receive baptism 
without true repentance, conviction, and knowledge, in 
the momentary agitation excited by the fear of death. 
In Novatian's case every apprehension of this kind was 
removed by his subsequent life." Again, as to the law 
(Canon 12th, a.d. 314) it says, "After it had been here 
declared that a person baptized in sickness could not be 
consecrated as a presbyter, it was assigned as a reason, 
' that such faith did not spring from free conviction, but 
was forced.' " And " an exception was made, viz. unless 
it might be permitted on account of his subsequent zeal 
and faith." 

We now give the Canon 12th of Neo Caesarea: "If 
any one be enlightened [i. e. baptized] during sickness 
(yoff<bv^ f he can not be advanced to the priesthood, for his 
faith is not of a settled purpose, but of necessity, unless 
indeed perhaps this defect is overlooked on account of his 



BAPTIDZO IN PATRISTIC GREEK. 279 

subsequent diligence and faith, and through the scarcity 
of men." 

Ambrose : " He who wished to be purified with a typ- 
ical baptism (typico baptismati) was sprinkled* with the 
blood of a lamb, by means of a bunch of hyssop." 

Cyril 1, of Alexandria, on Isaiah iv, 4: " We have been 
baptized not with mere water, nor yet with the ashes of a 
heifer [in the water of sprinkling], but with the Holy 
Spirit," etc. Here the sprinkling of Numbers xix, 13, 
18, 22 ; Hebrews ix, 13, quoted also, are baptisms. 

Jerome, a.d. 385, on Ezekiel xxxvi, 25: "'Then will 
I sprinkle clean water upon ¥011/ So that upon those 
who believe and are converted from error I might pour 
out the clean water of baptism." 

PATRISTIC BAPTISM. 

Here this most accurate and wise of the fathers, and 
most learned of all the Latin fathers, held Ezekiel xxxvi, 
25, to be water baptism, just as Cyprian, A.D. 251, did. 

Cyrill, again, 426: "He will make the early and the 
latter rain to come down upon you as of old. . . . (Joel 
ii, 23, 25). There has been given to us, as in rain, the 
living water of holy baptism." 

Sulpicius Severus, a.d. 403: "Remember that thou 
hast, under the hallowed dew of the font and the laver, 
been sealed with the chrism." 

The Centuriator's (quoting Socrates) Hist. Eccles., vii, 
17, tells of a font " out of which the water is poured upon 
those baptized." f 

* Adspergebatur. 

tBaptizato aqua superfusa . . . Aquam in mio alveo fiui . . . effiuxere 
existimaret, alveo baptisterii, etc. . . . aqua rursus penitus evanuit (Soc. 
vii, 17). 



280 BAPTISM. 

Constantine the Great was baptized by sprinkling. 

Cladovius, a.d. 499, king of the Franks, was sprink- 
led in his baptism. 

Germadius, of Marseilles, A.D. 490, said, " The person 
baptized was either sprinkled (aspergitur) or dipped (intin- 
gitur)." 

Lactantius, a.d. 325 : " So likewise he might save the 
gentiles by baptism; that is, by sprinkling the purifying 
water." * 

Cyrill treated both Isaiah i, 16 and Leviticus viii, 6, 7, 
both wash and sprinkle water, as baptism. 

Ambrose baptized Theodosius the Great by sprinkling. 

Hilarius said, "There are not wanting daily sick 
persons who are to be baptized." 

The Prseter Ariontheus was baptized by sprinkling. 

Tertullian : " These two baptisms he poured forth from 
the wound of his pierced side." f 

Ambrose: "Whence is baptism unless from the cross 
of Christ ?"{ 

John of Damascus : " The baptism of blood and mar- 
tyrdom by which Christ suffered himself to be baptized 
for us." § 

Origen and Athanasius held to the same. 

Origen on Luke xii, 50 : " For Christ shed his blood," 
etc. " For it is the baptism of blood alone that renders us 
more pure than the baptism of water. ' I have a baptism, 
etc/ You see, therefore, that he called the shedding of 
his blood baptism." 

All the fathers of these centuries refer the baptism 

%Sic etiam gentes baptismo, id est, purifici roris perfusione salvaret. 

~\Duo baptismus. Paris ed. 1634, pp. 35-37. 

% Unce sit baptisma nisi de cruce Christi ? I, 356. 

§ To (3a7TTtOf/.a & alfiaroq /cat [xaprvpiov 6 ml 6 xp' l(ST0 ^ virep tf/iav ktair- 



BAPTIDZO IN PATRISTIC GREEK. 281 

just named to his crucifixion, to the shedding of his blood 
and the water from his side, and not, as immersionists and 
some modern lexicons, to his sufferings, e. g. in the 
garden, etc. 

Ruth's Reliquis Sacrse, iii, 489 : " So that he, expect- 
ing to die, asked to receive the water . . . baptism. And 
he baptized him by sprinkling in the couch where he 
lay." * This is in almost the same words of the learned 
Eusebius. Note, "He baptized him." It was by sprink- 
ling the water on him. Notice, it do n't say he sprinkled 
him — " he baptized him by sprinkling him." 

Tertullian is emphasized a great deal by immersionists, 
and indeed he is the first man in all the world who names 
dipping or immersion for baptism. But it was by three 
immersions, the parties naked. But he supports affu- 
sion as well. His facts show that they stood them in 
water to be baptized very often, the baptism being by 
affusion, but in water to " imbibe " the " mighty grace of 
water." He says, "Notf that I deny that the divine ben- 
efit ... is, in every way, sure to such as are on the point 
of entering the water ; but what we have to labor for is 
that it may be granted to us to attain that blessing ; for 
who will grant to you, a man of so faithless repentance, 
one single sprinkling of the water whatever?"! 

Again, on the question of whether the twelve apostles 
were baptized or not, he urges, " Others make the sugges- 
tion — forced enough to be sure — 'that the apostles then 
served the term of baptism when, in their little ship, they 
were sprinkled [adspersi] and covered with the waves; that 
Peter also was mersed enough [satis mersuni] when he 

* 'Ei> avrri t?} k/Uot? fj ekeito TTEpixvdEvra 6t]6ev ktarcTi^ev. 
t Tertullian, Repentance, vi, 267. 
X De Pceniten, chap. vi. 

24 



282 BAPTISM. 

walked on the sea.' It is, however, as I think, one thing 
to be sprinkled [adspergi — as were the eleven], or inter- 
cepted by the violence of the sea [as was Peter] ; another 
thing to be baptized in obedience to the discipline of 
religion." " Now, whether they were baptized in any 
manner whatever, or whether they continued unwashed 
(illoti)" etc. 

1. Here, though some parties "enter the [baptismal] 
waters," they do it from superstitious ideas of its virtue, 
but are baptized by sprinkling. 

2. Had the eleven received the sprinkling water volun- 
tarily, in obedience to the discipline of religion, it would 
have served for baptism, in his estimation. 

3. Tertullian uses adspergo, lavo, tingo, per/undo, as 
well as mergo, for baptism, repeating adspergo, sprinkle, a 
number of times. 

BAPTISM WITH TEAES — WITH BLOOD. 

4. The water and blood shed from Christ's side were 
" baptisms." Surely the water that was shed from the side 
of Christ was not a dipping. The blood that he shed did 
not dip him. Yet Origen, Tertullian, Ambrose, Athan- 
asius, John of Damascus, all held them to be baptisms. 
So did the Syrian fathers. 

Eusebius's Eccles. Hist., a.d. 324, b. iii, ch. 23, records 
that a backslider was overtaken by the aged John the 
Evangelist and was reclaimed thus: "Then trembling, he 
lamented bitterly, and embracing the old man [John] as he 
came up, attempted to plead for himself with his lamenta- 
tions, as much as he was able, as if baptized a second time 
with his own tears." * 

* So also the old Latin version of Eusebius, lachrymis denuo baptiz- 
atus est. 



BAPTIDZO IN PATRISTIC GREEK. 283 

John of Damascus reckons seven baptisms, the last 
"seventh, that which is by blood and martyrdom, with 
which Christ himself for us was baptized." 

Hilary, speaking of baptism, says, "That which by 
suffering of martyrdom will wash away [sin] with faithful 
and devoted blood." 

Athanasius, fourth century, says, " For it is proper to 
know that, in like manner, the fountain of tears by bap- 
tism cleanses man." Again, "Three baptisms, cleansing 
away all sin whatsoever God has bestowed on the nature 
of man. I speak of that of water ; and again, that by the 
witness of one's own blood ; and, thirdly, that by tears, 
with which, also, the harlot was cleansed." Chrysostom 
holds the same. 

PATRISTIC BAPTISM. 

Will our immersion friends tell us how a man is dipped 
in his own blood? Will they explain how a man is dip- 
ped in his own tears? Will they resort to the metaphor- 
ical, and say "they were as it were" overwhelmed with 
grief or suffering? That will not serve for an explana- 
tion. 

1. They are not metaphorical, but real baptism. 

2. They were held to be sufficient baptisms by those 
most learned of all the fathers. 

3. Even if we were to assume the absurd position that 
they were metaphorical baptisms, all metaphors are based 
on realities, and the one must correspond in the main 
points to the other. If only dipping is baptism, shedding 
tears, shedding one's blood on himself, can not change lit- 
eral dip into metaphorical pour or sprinkle. 

But samples from the fathers are enough, and these are 



284 BAPTISM. 

given. We do not regard the views of the fathers, espe- 
cially after superstitions came in like a flood, as of much 
importance. Their testimony as to facts are more valua- 
ble by an infinite degree. We have given these mainly 
to offset the assertions of immersionists as to the views of 
the fathers. 



FACTS ON THE HISTORY OF BAPTISM. 

1. While water baptism originated in the universal 
symbolism of water, with innocence, purity as the way to 
innocency, immersion originated in supersitious views of 
the efficacy of the baptismal waters. This is seen in the 
virtue attributed to lustrations or washings by all ancient 
nations.* Ovid says, " Our old men believe that all wick- 
edness and all manner of evil may be removed by purifi- 
cation." Again, the Latins held, "All disorder of the 
soul is washed away by purification of this kind."f Ter- 
tullian, De Batismo, says, "At the sacred rites of Isis, 
or Mithra, they are initiated by a washing (lavaero); 
they expiate villas, houses, temples, and whole cities, by 
sprinkling with water carried around. Certainly they are 
baptized (tinguntur) in the Apollinarian and Eleusonian 
rites, and they say they do this to obtain regeneration, and 
to escape the punishment of their perjuries. Also among 
the ancients, whoever had stained himself with murder ex- 
piated himself with purifying water." Hence, T. tells us 
of the "medical virtues" water "imbibed" under the con- 
secration of the priest in his day. "How mighty is the 

* See Demosthenes on the Crown ; Diogenes Lser. 222 ; Plutarch on 
Diogenes ; Ovid's Met., lib. xiv, 950 ; iv, 478 ; Jer. xi, 23 ; Porphyry of 
the Egyptians : Tpig r^c 7][iepag aklovcovro <j>vxp<>>. 

"fOmnis ejusmodi peturbatio animi placatione abluatur. 



BAPTIDZO IN PATRISTIC GREEK. 285 

grace of water ! " "All waters, therefore, ... do, after 
invocation of God, attain the sacramental power of sanc- 
tification. . . . They imbibe at the same time the power 
of sanctifying."* 

ORIGIN OF IMMERSION. 

Theophylact says of those immersed, " For as he who is 
immersed in the waters and baptized is surrounded on all 
sides by the waters," etc.f Such party — "bathing the 
whole body, while he who simply receives water [by affu- 
sion] is not wholly wetted on all places." J 

Here you see that by the third and fourth centuries the 
virtue of baptismal water was established, as Neander 
shows abundantly in his history, aside from our facts from 
different sources mainly. 

Dr. Gale quotes Reland to prove that the Mohammedan 
custom was that " the water must ' touch every hair of 
the body, and the whole skin all over* . . . This manner 
of washing the whole body is necessary in order to puri- 
fication" in specified cases (Wall ii, 97). 

1. Up to these times mode never entered into the con- 
troversy of baptism. It was the motive, the question of 
sincerity or insincerity alone that was involved, as in No- 
vatian. But now in Cyprian's day, middle of the third 
century, the quantity of water, the touching of all parts 
by the water, began to attract attention. If any part was 
untouched, sin might lurk there. Hence — 

3. Whenever the cleansing efficacy of the water was 

*De Bap., chap, v, 236, vol. 1. 

t Conant, Baptizein, pp. 22-3. 

% Conant, 104, for the Greek, 6Xov to cu/ua ftpexuv, wetting the whole 
body, while he who merely receives the water — vypaivofiivov, hugraino- 
menon — water sprinkled, sprinkled with water. 



286 BAPTISM. 

established copious affusions of water in baptism followed. 
Then the insertion of the party " deep in the water " — up 
to the arms and neck sometimes followed — that the sanc- 
tifying grace might be "imbibed," while water was copi- 
ously poured on the head as the baptismal rite. 

4. As yet mode never entered into the essentialness or 
validity of baptism. The point was to have every part 
touched by the water. In the extract from Maimonides 
this superstition is seen among Jews as well as among the 
fathers. Had the candidate been dipped repeatedly — im- 
mersed completely a hundred times — they would have 
held it invalid for baptism had the subject been so enrobed 
as to prevent the water from reaching his person. Even 
as a true symbolism this would be correct, showing not 
mode or action, but contact of the pure water constitutes 
the baptism. 

Tertullian shows where parties were mersed in water 
thus ; then the baptism follows : "A man is mersed (mer- 
sus) in water, and amid the utterance of some few words 
is baptized (tingatur), and then rises again," etc. 

Augustine, next to Jerome the most learned of Latin 
fathers, is thus cited by Archbishop Kendrick on Bap- 
tism : " Unless wheat be ground and sprinkled with water, 
it can not come to that form which is called bread. So 
you, also, were first ground, as it were, by mystic exor- 
cisms. [See the superstitions now.] Then was added 
baptism : Ye were as it were sprinkled, that ye might 
come to the form of bread."* On this the Arch- 
bishop says, " St. Augustine remarks [quoting the above — 
' sprinkled with water '] . . . This being addressed gener- 
ally to the faithful, most of whom were solemnly baptized, 
leads us to infer that even in solemn baptism aspersion 

* Sermon ccxxviii, ad Inf. de Sacram. 1417. 



BAPTIDZO IN PATRISTIC GREEK. 287 

was often used, water being sprinkled on the candidate 
while he stood deeply immersed" (Kendrick on Bap., p. 
156, ed. 1852). 

We quote the above the more because the Catholics 
have been so misquoted on this question, Bossuet's Jesuit- 
ical statements being relied on as if worthy of regard. 

Hence Robinson, the great Baptist hero of history, 
says, "A Greek baptism, where, beside, trine-immersion, 
superfusion is practiced, or a baptism where the laver was 
too small, and where the body was immersed in the laver, 
and the head was immersed by superfusion " in the days of 
St. Lawrence and Strabo. Hist. Bapt., p. 108. "Im- 
mersed by superfusion " ! ! How absurd ! He cites St. 
Lawrence on those who immersed, yet baptized by pour- 
ing — " superfusion" ; e. g. the party " was immersed in the 
waters" while the priest copiously " poured the water upon 
his head";* and this often occurred. In cases often the 
laver was too small where they immersed to submerge the 
whole man, and in such cases where " the head could not 
be mersed," " the water was administered by pouring, the 
rest of the body by immersion,f so that no part of the man 
should be without the sacred washing." In other cases 
" they simply poured the water on the heads of those to be 
baptized." J 

5. The first time mersion appears or immersion as a re- 
ligious rite is in those superstitious days. Tertullian is 
the first and only man of his day in North Africa who 

* Utpote qui aquis immersus erat, benedicit, sinistra urceum aqua pla- 
num super ejusdem caput effundit. Urceus tste ex cere etiam nunc ibidem 
in sacrario, etc. 

^Ergo quia caput mergi non poterat, superfusio aquae adhibebatur, 
immersio ad reliquem corpus, ut nulla pars hominis expers esset sacri 
lavacri. Ibid. 

% Robinson cites also where in trine-immersion in other cases " aquam 
capitibus baptizandorum superfundunt" etc. 



288 BAPTISM. 

names it, and the first time he names it trine-immersion 
was the rite. Superstitious practices are united with it of 
a most revolting kind, showing it was all born of super- 
stition. 

6. The first time we find baptism practiced as a single 
immersion, as now practiced, is in the History of Sozomen, 
in the middle of the fourth century. He treats it as an 
innovation never known before.* No immersionist has 
given or can give a case where baptism was practiced in 
all the records and literature of the church till the fourth 
century after Christ. 

7. Hence no Latin father, in all their voluminous 
works, is found that during the first two and a half centu- 
ries of the church, renders baptidzo by immergo, nor a 
Greek that renders it by hataduo, immerse. But after the 
third century they soon introduce these terms, and they 
become common. 

8. Where Tertullian uses mergo, mergito, it is not in 
defining baptidzo. Indeed, when he uses mergo he imme- 
diately uses tingo (baptize) as expressive of a different 
idea. Hence, to constitute " one baptism " they used 
" three immersions " — kataduseis. 

9. In all these periods baptism was by affusion also. 
Hence — 

10. Not a single father, Latin, Greek, Syriac, or Arabic, 
for the first three centuries ever refers to Romans vi, 4; 
Colossians ii, 12, "Buried by baptism into death," as 
water baptism, a fact utterly incompatible with the suppo- 
sition that mode was regarded as essential or that it was 
water baptism. 

*Sozomen's Eccles. Hist., chap, xxvi, pp. 282-284. He urges that 
Eunomius u devised another heresy " — a single immersion, instead of 
"trine-immersion." It was " an innovation," he a heretic in doing so. 
See the full quotation in Louisville Debate, pp. 593-4. 



BAPTIDZO IN PATRISTIC GREEK. 289 

11. In all their disputes over the efficacy of immersion 
as a sanctifying means, in the third and later centuries, as 
if a mere sprinkle of water failed to convey as much 
grace, not once do they question the mode when per- 
formed by sprinkling, never that of pouring, nor appealed 
to the meaning of the word, as if among them it necessa- 
rily implied immersion. They do agree that " more ben- 
efit is imparted " where the water, regardless of mode, 
whether by " mersion " or by " superfusion," comes in 
contact with " all parts of the body." 

12. All the most ancient baptisteries (none earlier than 
the third century); all ancient and earlier allusions to it; 
all picture representations of it in earlier times, sustain 
affusion. But after all, of what value are the testimonies 
of the fathers on this subject, after the third century at 
least or even the second, when the Bible and philology so 
overwhelmingly demonstrate the truths we hold ? 

25 



290 BAPTISM. 



CHAPTER XXIV. 

Tabal, Hebrew fob Baptidzo. 

But we have a source of light still on this subject that 
is as instructive in philology as it is overwhelming, in 
proof that our views are infallibly correct on this subject. 
All scholars and critics are agreed that — 

1. p2.£) Tabal (pronounced taval, tabhaF), the Hebrew 
word for baptidzo, occurs sixteen times in the Old Testa- 
ment, once being in composition. 

2. As Schleusner says, it corresponds to baptidzo, 
though as Suicer and Beza show, it answers more to 
rachats, as to use. 

3. It is often translated bapto in the Greek Scriptures. 

4. It is generally rendered dip in James's version, 
though never the equivalent of complete immersion. 

5. It is translated baptidzo (baptize) by the Septuagint 
(2 Kings v, 14), the version largely used by the apostles. 

6. It is translated baptize constantly by all ancient 
writers who treated of it, by the lexicons, and is the 
word most constantly used for the ancient proselyte bap- 
tism by Jews.* 

. 7. Like the classic baptidzo it was not a word of relig- 
ious import ordinarily till a later day. Once in the Bible 
it is religiously used — meaning " purified" — " Whom Je- 
hovah hath purified — lustravit" (Gesenius). 

* Sinceri Thesaurus, vol. 1, art. Baptidzo and 'ma ; Wahl's Clavis, 
ibid.; Beza Annot. Matt, iii ; Trommius's Concor. LXX, art. Bap.; 
Schleusner, ibid.; Louisville Debate, pp. 479, 416-17, etc. 



TABHAL, HEBREW FOR BAPTIDZO. 291 

8. It is frequently the translation of rachats (Y^J), the 
word immersionists insist always implied im mergence in 
the ancient Jewish Targums.* 

9. It is often translated by tseva in the Targums, and 
the immersionists claim this as the word of words for im- 
merse, which M. Stuart freely gives up to them. 

Let us examine the lexicons, then the occurrences of 
this word, then its root-meaning, in the light of science 
and of history. The smaller manuals, lexicons of highest 
repute, are those of J. Simonis, edited by Wetstein, 1757, 
later by Winer, Stokius, Leigh, J. Buxtorf, 1639, and 
Gesenius of the present century. They all define tabal 
exactly alike, same that Buxtorf has demerset, sink down 
or under as a meaning. These three then give it tabal, 
" to moisten, dip, immerse." f Gesenius once also ren- 
ders it ° purify." X 

Hottinger, Hectaglotton, 1661, renders it to moisten, 
wet, stain, dip, to wash.§ We will expose the blunders 
and self-contradictions of Gesenius, whom Rabbi Wise 
clings to, at the end of this chapter. The careless render- 
ing of Gesenius by Robinson, and the confounding by im- 
mersionists of the partial dip, in the Pentateuch, to moisten 
a bunch of hyssop, etc. with a total immersion, has caused 
confusion hereof The word immerse in Hebrew — tabha 
(22tt) — all the lexicons define by immerse (immergo), 

* It is so rendered 2 Kings v, 10. 

"\Tinxit, intinxit, immersit. Buxtorf: Also demersit. 

X Lustravit, Thesaurus sub voce Tebaliahu. 

\Etymologicum Orientate Lex. Harmonicum Hectaglotton, Heb., Chal., 
Syr., Arab., Samaritan®, ./Ethiopicae, Talmudico — Robinicae, a Jah. Henr. 
Hottengero, MDCLXI. The " abluere, " wash, refers simply to rab- 
binic and Chaldaic use. 

f See Louisville Debate, pp. 436-7, 473-4, as examples, as if dip, dip 
in, and immerse were exactly the same. If so, why the three words, 
and why the tinxit, intinxit, immersit ? 



292 BAPTISM. 

promptly, never by tingo, which shows a marked distinc- 
tion. Dip is a derivative meaning of tingo as it is of 
bapto, tabal, etc. But that we may see who is correct as 
to the meaning intended by the lexicographers, let us ap- 
peal to the great folio works they have left us, wherein 
they elaborately explain the whole matter, and we will be 
left in no doubt. 



THE GREAT STANDARD FOLIO LEXICONS. 

1. We introduce the leader of this august tribunal, 
the illustrious Schindler, whom Dr. Leigh, indorsing other 
great names, calls "the greatest scholar in Christendom." 
His lexicon, Pentaglotton, 1612, thus deposes on "tabal, 
Chaldee, tebal: to moisten, dip, sink, immerse for the 
purpose of wetting or cleansing, sink down or under. In 
such wise (thus), to wash, as the thing is not made clean, 
but merely touches the liquid either in whole or in part, 
to baptize."* 

2. Buxtorf, usually styled "the Prince of Hebrew 
scholars," so often quoted by immersionists as their cham- 
pion, thus defines it in his great folio, the result of his 
life's labor. It is only his manual quoted in the Louis- 
ville Debate, pages 450 and 675. Tabal, f to moisten, 

* Lexicons Pentaglotton, Hebraicum, Chaldaicum, Syriaeum, Tal. — 
Rab. et Arabicum, professor ancient languages in the principal institu- 
tions of Germany, MDCXII. ?2& Chal. '2p tebal, tinxit, intinxit, mer- 
sit, immersit, tingendi aut abluendi gratia, demersit ; ita lavit, ut res non 
mundetur, sed tantum attingat humorem vel totam vel exparte, baptizavit. 

^J. Buxtorfii Lexicon Chal. et Rab. opus xxx annorum, Basilece 
MDCXXXIX. Tebal, tingere, intingere, denu im, intingi, im, Rab- 
binis usurpatur pro Lavare se, abluere aliquid in aqua. Ablutio autem est 
vel Vasorum, vel hominum. Hominum ablutio fiebat immersione corporis 
tatius in aquas. Et hinc . . . ita ut res abluenda ab aliquid ei adu&reus 
non iota abluatur, et ab aqua contingatur. Sedar Tatiareth, Betza, folio, 



TABHAL, HEBREW FOR BAPTIDZO. 293 

to dip, sink down, immerse, be dipped, immersed. It is 
used by the rabbins for to wash oneself, to cleanse any 
thing in water. But the washing is of the vessels or men. 
The washing of men — persons — may be accomplished by 
immersing the whole body in water. The washing of ves- 
sels also hath its own peculiar regulations. And here the 
rabbins are very careful, and notice the minutest matters 
that pertain to the purification which they accomplish in 
the washing, so that the object to be cleansed from any 
thing adhering to it is not washed all over, but sprin- 
kled with the water." He then quotes Ledar Taharoth, 
that they " cleanse (tabal) all things before the Sabbath." 

3. Stokius is not a folio, but stands so high with Mr. 
A. Campbell we notice him. Defining it quite as the 
manuals, and as equivalent to bapto and baptidzo, he adds, 
"So that it touches (or is touched with) the moisture 
(liquid) in whole or barely in part," etc.* 

4. Ed. Leigh, Critica Sacra. This great scholar de- 
fines it as the rest above, adding, " The object is not puri- 
fied, but merely touched with the liquid either wholly or 
partly, to baptize." j 

5. Castell. We come now to quote the largest and 
most remarkable Oriental lexicon that has ever been com- 
piled, in which all the words in the Hebrew, Chaldee, 
Syriac, Samaritan, iEthiopic, Arabic, and Persic manu- 
scripts, as well as printed books in Walton's famous Poly- 
glott, are contained, by Edmund Castell, S.T.D., Lon- 
don, 1669. This immense folio in two volumes, contain- 
ing forty-six hundred and twenty-two immense pages was 

172. " Contingatur" is compounded of con — with, and tango — to touch. 
It is rendered besprinkle by the lexicons also. 

* Ut attingat humorem ex toto, aut saltern exparte, Clavis Heb., etc. 

tRes non mundetur, sed tantum attingat humore vel tota, vel parte, 
baptizavit. This is not a folio, but most eminent critic. 



294 BAPTISM. 

the result of the labors of nineteen of the ablest scholars 
and critics in the world at the time, employed on it seven- 
teen years, aggregating over three hundred years' labor, 
allowing for the death of some before finishing the work. 
Native Jews, rabbis, Arabs, and such men as Lightfoot, 
Wansleb, Murry, Beveridge, assisted in the work. Being 
thus assisted he excels all others in accuracy and research, 
up to that period, and he had before him the results of 
Schindler, Buxtorf, Walton, and Golius, etc. Hence it is 
equivalent to nineteen lexicons, made and condensed by 
nineteen authors so renowned. 

C^-t] tabhal, "to moisten, dip, sink down, immerse, 
(English, dip or dabble), baptize. It differs from rachats 
(wash) because it is a washing to purify an object. Dip- 
ping, but it merely touches the object to [or with] the 
liquid, either in part or in whole." Rabbi David Kimchi, 
Gen. xxxvii, 31, etc. 

" Chaldee, tebal, same as the Hebrew, where the rabbins 
use it for to wash oneself, cleanse any thing in water. But 
the washing is either of vessels or of men ; later it was by 
the immersion of the whole body in water, but not always. 
Pocock, P.M. No. 390, etc.; Rabbi Levi, Sept., etc.; 
Rabbi Solomon." * 

In the face of all this immersionists will say, as Elder 
Wilkes does,f that " it never means to wet or moisten, not 
once; it never means to wash, but it always means to im- 
merse." Italics his. 

* ^2i2, tinxit, int., dem. im. ( Angl. to dippe or dabble) baptizavit : dxf- 
fert a *W^. quod lotio sit ad rem mundandum: Intinctio, autem rem hu- 
midam contingat tantum, vel exparte, vel totam. R. Dav. (Gen. xxxvii, 
31, etc.). 

Chal., 'd$, { n g % Heb. ib. Rab. Lavit se, abliut aliquid in aqua. Ablu- 
tio autem est, vel vasorum, vel hominum ; posterior sit immersione corpo- 
ris totius in aqua; at non semper (Pocock, P.M. No. 390, etc. ; R. Levi, 
Sept., Hauct. p. Tes. R. Sol). t Louisville Debate, p. 453. 



TABHAL, HEBREW FOR BAPTIDZO. 295 

6. Fiirst. We now quote the latest and most scientific 
Hebraist that has lived for ages, Rabbi Fiirst. 

The greatest Hebrew lexicon ever yet produced, re- 
stricted to the Hebrew and a few Chaldee verses in the He- 
brew Bible, as well as the only one yet that has any claim 
to a correct analysis of the root-meaning of words, is by 
the great Jewish rabbi, Julius Fiirst, 1840, and his per- 
fected lexicon of a much later date — last edition 1867.* 

* On the fluctuations of Hebrew lexicography, the following facts 
presented by the learned Haverniek, and fully vindicated by Delitzsch, 
Hupfeld, and Ewald, later by Fiirst, no scholar can gainsay : -A Gen- 
eral Historico-critical Introduction to the Old Testament, by H. A. Ch. 
Haverniek, late teacher of theology in the University of Konigsburg, 
MDCCCLII (1852)." This is held by scholars to be the best introduc- 
tion to the Old Testament ever produced. Page 221, he shows the dif- 
ferent systems espoused to develop the study of the Hebrew language. 
u The formal conception of the stems " was an important point — all im- 
portant. " Both (schools) set out from the principle that the radices 
(roots) of the Hebrew are biliterce (two radical letters forming the base 
of the word), and that the grand meaning of the bilitera; must be 
evolved from the meaning of the letters composing it." He shows that 
Danz founded the best later school. After Ch. B. Michaelis and Storr 
"there . . . prevailed . . . a certain empiricism which is to be viewed in 
relation to the earlier as a retrogression in the method of investigation, 
and by which penetration into the Hebrew was little furthered. To 
such an empirical mode of treatment, in opposition even to what had 
been before attempted, did Vater yield himself. However distinguished 
for careful collecting of materials and tasteful arrangements are the 
lexical and grammatical works of Gesenius, they are, nevertheless, co?i- 
jined to this empirical standpoint," 223-4. " ' By Ewald's Kritische 
Grammatik' this was for the first time assaulted, and a scientific investi- 
gation of the language, proceeding upon the proper laws of speech, and 
placed upon a footing of due harmony with the historical appearance 
and development of the language, was entered upon. His efforts and 
those of Hupfeld have thus once more begun to create positivelv an 
epoch in the study of Hebrew, an advance which is also beginning, at 
least, to make itself apparent in the lexical department." '• Buxtorf 
still remains the completest compilation of lexical and grammatical 
matter here, and there is still wanting a genuinely scientific and in- 
dependent, even in the grammars of the J. D. Michaelis, Winer (He- 



296 BAPTISM. 

The first is a great folio, with complete concordance. The 
one in German (lexicon), the other in Latin : 

Fiirst: Tabal, to moisten, to wet, to sprinkle; to im- 
merse. The root is bal. Compare the words derived from 
the same root with kindred meanings — to flow, drop down, 
pour, pour water on, stream forth, sprinkle. Septuagint, 
bapteirij baptidzein, molunein.* 

In his later lexicon, where he brings out all the results 
of his labors, 1867, this distinguished Jewish professor, of 
Leipzig, thus defines tabal, to baptize: "To moisten, to 
sprinkle, rigare, tingere; therefore to dip, to immerse. 
. . . The fundamental signification of the stem is "to 
moisten, to besprinkle." 

Elder Wilkes, and some writers following him, in his 
last speech, to which I had no reply, says, page 675 f (Lou. 
Debate), " Is it not singular that he (Fiirst) should say it 
means to moisten, to sprinkle, and therefore to dip or im- 
merse?" He urges, then, that there must be some error 
here. It would be strange indeed; but Elder Wilkes 
ought to have known that it was not true, nor should he 
have waited till his last speech to say so, lest it might be 

brew older works), and others." I have had Hupf eld's work some four- 
teen years — the ablest yet out. Of him he says, "In more recent 
times they (these principles) have found, for the first time, a worthy 
critic in Hupfeld" (Note, page 222). Now, as Ewald and Hupfeld 
brought out the true principles of Hebrew study, and demolished the 
empirical system of Gesenius, Fiirst takes up their results and brings 
them out in all their force, and makes a new era again in Hebrew study. 
The far-fetched and utterly silly analogies of Gesenius are crushed, and 
the true laws for discovering the root established. 

* '3i£, rigare, tingere, perfundere (German edition, begiessen), immer- 
gere. Radix est bal ^2 . . . compara modo verba eadem de radice orta 
abal, bal, zabel, shabal, etc. 

t Page 680, Mr. Wilkes says again, " I know it does not make any 
sense to say that the word taval means Ho sprinkle or pour,' and there- 
fore to immerse, 'to dip.' That is not good sense." Who says it? . . . 
Not Fiirst, as his own quotation shows. 



TABHAL, HEBREW FOR BAPTIDZO. 297 

corrected. Fiirst copies his Latin definition, and the 
word that W. says always means dip, immerse, and from 
which dip is developed — tingere, thus: rigare, tingere; 
therefore to dip, etc. ; i. e. as it means tingere^ so it comes 
to mean to dip. See above where it is just as in his 
lexicon. 

Let us sum up now. 

1. All give moisten, wet, as the most common meaning. 

2. All give immerse as a derivative, and not primary 
meaning. Not one gives it as a primary meaning. 

3. All of the great masters say that if the object 
merely touches or is touched by the liquid or water it 
baptizes it. 

4. That immersion was a mode by which Jews bap- 
tized sometimes, not always ; and it was a later practice 
than by affusion or barely being touched (ab aqua) by the 
water. Buxtorf and Castell. 

5. That the primary meaning of the word is to besprin- 
kle, sustained by all words of the same root. 

6. Gesenius, the great immersionist lexicographer, as- 
sumes, first, that its root is the same with deuo in Greek, 
to bedew, sprinkle, shed forth; second, that the root, 
meaning immerse never has such meaning in all Bible 
literature.* He never renders it immerse, but dip (m- 
tingo), as well as "to purify." 

* Gesenius, 1833-4, Thesaurus, 1835-6, traces ^2^, tabha, immerse, 
and '?*£, tabal, tabhal, to the same" root — DlS (tab). Kabbi Wise, of Ohio, 
follows him in a published letter, and misquotes and utterly tortures 
Fiirst's language, yet admits it dips wholly or partly. Gesenius says ^-^ 
is the same as " Hebrew and Arabic ^^," and adds, " The primary 
syllable is D^ (tab) . . . depth, and immersion. Compare Goth. Duip, 
Engl, deep, Ger. tie/; also, Goth, daufen, Ger. taufen, Engl, dip; Gr. 
' dhwTu (dupto), and softened devu (deuo)." Such jargon is absolutely a 



298 BAPTISM. 

7. CastelPs nineteen lexicographers, Stokius, Leigh, 
Schindler, Buxtorf, and Fiirst, equivalent to twenty-four, 
twenty-three of whom are the greatest ever known. Add 
Rabbi Kimchi, who defines it the same way, and in tenth 
century, whom Gesenius exalts above all, we have twenty- 
five with us, and Gesenius thrown in. 

Dr. Barnes is often quoted by immersionists. On 
tabhal he says in his Notes on Matthew iii, 6 (vol. 1), 
where he takes it up from baptidzo, "In none of these 

burlesque. But if correct, it destroys the whole immersion fabric. Aevu, 
which he holds is same root with tab, we have seen means to bedew, 
sprinkle, shed upon," etc. So we are sustained, and might stop. But 
we will not let him and his admirers off so easily. Gesenius says under 
ki?i£ tamce, to be or become unclean, impure, to be defiled, polluted. He 
renders tabhal, tinxit, intinxit, immersit, and " lustravit " under its com- 
position form. Syriac, tama, to pollute . . . The primary idea is that 
of immersing. See in )W% taman. (a) Chiefly spoken of Levitical un- 
cleanness, both of persons and animals (i. e. animals not to be eaten. 
See Lev. xi, 1-31), and also of things, as buildings, vessels, etc. Twice 
does Gesenius assert that " the primary idea is that of immersing" etc., 
speaking of 2*J as the root. Yet he can not, and he does not, adduce a 
single word that has tab as the root that ever means to immerse, dip, or 
plunge. On the contrary, out of over one hundred and fifty references 
which he gives himself, he never renders it immerse or dip ; nor dared 
he do so. He renders it " defile, pollute, profane, e. g. the name of God 
( Ez. xliii, 7, 8 ); the sanctuary ( Lev. xv, 31 ; Jer. vii, 30) ; a land by 
wickedness and idolatry ( Num. xxxv, 34 ; Jer. ii, 7." etc.). The texts 
show that it was often done by touching, as a dead body (Lev. xi, 24), 
"toucheth the carcass," etc. (v. 26), "toucheth," etc. Here then is the 
root of his favorite word that means, primarily, "to immerse." Yet 
never means to immerse in a single place in all Hebrew literature. On 
the contrary, he shows that it is done s in most cases by a mere touch, in 
many by affusion, in some by sprinkling, as in case of blood, or water 
that is unclean, etc. He is wild in his idea of nazah, getting it from 
Arabic naza, where it is clearly the same with the Arabic natzach, to 
sprinkle; ^Ethiopic, nazach. Lastly, Gesenius getting all his support 
from Indo-European languages, where in his greatest Essay on Phi- 
lology he utterly repudiates that source as a reliable aid (see it also in 
the Bib. Eepos., 1833) is utterly inconsistent. We will further test the 
root tab directly, and see the result. 



TABHAL, HEBREW FOB BAPTIDZO. 299 

fifteen cases [he misses one] can it be shown that the 
meaning of the word is to immerse entirely. But in 
nearly all the cases the notion of applying the water to 
a part only of the person or object, though it was by 
dipping, is necessarily to be supposed." 

Lightfoot, next to Pocock and Fiirst, of all the scholars 
in centuries past was the best versed in rabbinic litera- 
ture. In the famous and often misstated discussions of 
the Assembly, 1643, it is stated in his life that one man 
asserted that this word, pronounced in later times tebeilah 
(baptism), " imports a dipping overhead." Lightfoot 
answered him " and proved the contrary, first, from a 
passage of Aben Ezra on Genesis xxxviii [xxxvii, 31]; 
second, from Rabbi Solomon Jarchi, who, in his commen- 
tary on Exodus xxiv, saith that Israel entered into cove- 
nant with sprinkling of blood and Taybelah [i. e. tebal, 
baptism], which the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews 
expoundeth by sprinkling (Hebrew ix. . . In conclusion, 
he proposed to that Assembly to show him in all the Old 
Testament any one instance where the word used de saeris 
et in actu transeunte implied any more than sprinkling." 

All that Wetstein, Alting, Meyer, etc. have on this 
question is taken from the above masters. Who, then, 
best knew of the matter? 

Gesenius made a futile effort to run tab, the word he 
erroneously assumes to be the root of tabal, through 
the Aryan tongues into daub, dob, daupian, etc., doopar, 
When in the Semitic families, so much nearer home, dub, 
dob, daba would have come far nearer giving the truth 
and science of his dip. 3tl (dub) in Chaldee, to flow, 
flow down, to rain (bedew) ; Syriac, dob, make wet, flow ; 
Samaritan, to flow; Arabic, moisten, make wet.* Kin- 

*Fluxit, dejfluxit, jjrofluxit, roravit, liquefecit, the latter repeated over 
and again. 



300 BAPTISM. 

dred to it, same word strengthened, is duph, dup ; Arabic, 
dapa, or dipa, to make wet,* macerate. 

As Gesenius has been so earnestly pressed into service 
by Elder Wilkes, etc. we will cite what he says in his 
famous and very learned essay on Sources of Hebrew 
Philology and Lexicography, to show again his defective 
and contradictory statements: "3. But the most impor- 
tant by far of all the languages kindred to the Hebrew, 
and in every respect the most fertile source of Hebrew 
etymology and lexicography, is the Arabic, one of the 
richest and most cultivated, and also in its literary history 
one of the most important languages in the world." 
"The Arabic the best and surest help."f He gives "words 
which stand in connection with the Indian tongues," i. e. 
Aryan branches, as simply a few words in music and 
natural history. Yet on tabal he violates all this, and 
seeks all his help in Aryan languages and ignores the 
Arabic that was full of help on that very root. In the 
late Webster's Dictionary all this folly is copied, and they 
give for dip, " Ger. dopen, Sw. dopa, D. doopen" Web- 
ster never put it there of course; they state that fact in 
the introduction. Ed. 18784 

*Humectavit, maceravit. 

|See also more in his "Arabische Sprache" and "Arabische Liter- 
atur " in Ersch and Grubens Encyc. ; Eichorn, Wachler, Bib. Kepos., 
1833. 

J Why did they not then cite the Arabic dipa, or dapa, dup, etc. ? 



PRIMARY MEANING. 301 



CHAPTER XXV. 

Primary Meaning. 

Let us now examine as to the primary meaning of the 
terra baptize as it occurs in Semitic languages, the apos-> 
ties being Hebrews. 

In religious use words longest retain their primary 
meaning. In Genesis the word baptize first occurs, and 
we have seen it is in the sense of sprinkle. We now pro^ 
pose to apply to ^J tabal (pronounced taval) the rules 
and laws by which the true meanings, and primary mean- 
ings, of all words are now found by philological scientists. 
Before we do this let us hear A. Campbell on the rules 
applied: "Derivative words legally inherit the specific 
though not necessarily the figurative meaning of their 
natural progenitors, and never can so far alienate from 
themselves that peculiar significance as to indicate any 
action specifically different from that indicated from the 
parent stock. [We have seen how utterly void is this in 
our examples of words meaning to sprinkle, pour, dip, 
immerse, etc.] Indeed (continues he), all inflexions of 
words, with their sometimes numerous and various fam- 
ilies of descendants, are but modifications of one and the 
same generic or specific idea." He then runs one word, 
"dip," through such inflexions and says, emphasizing 
every word, "Wherever the radical syllable (bap) is found 
the radical idea is in it" (Chris. Baptism, pp. 119, 120). 
That is, as Mr. Campbell applies this to bapto and bap- 



302 BAPTISM. 

tidzo, if we select all the words compounded or derived 
from the root bapto — its radical idea, the root being bap 
with the force of "dip" — we will find dip in every such 
word. 

We have bapto, baptos, baptos, embapto, baptidzo, embap* 
tidzo, kata-baptidzo, anabaptidzo, baptismos, baptisma, bap-, 
tisis, baptistces, with all possible inflexions — ebaphon, eba- 
phce, bammati, bebammenon ; the letter p exchanged for an 
m, to be resumed again. In all these is the root bap; 
hence always the idea of dip. So reasons the immersion- 
ist. We are not now objecting to all this as a rule, but 
deny the dip as the primary idea. We now test baptize 
in Hebrew where it occurs more than one thousand years 
before we come up with it in the Greek any where. As 
we gave above thirteen or fourteen variations of bap, the 
root, let us select about an equal number of variations of 
the root of the Hebrew word baptize (?2i£ tabat). Bal 
is the root of the word. Now what is the prevailing 
" idea " of this root of the word in Hebrew ? Fortunately 
in Hebrew we have great light here in kindred tongues 
in which the same root occurs in many words, with the 
same meaning, while unfortunately in the kindred tongues 
to the Greek, Latin, and other Indo-European tongues, 
no assistance has been found, no kindred root.* In the 
Arabic, Gesenius and all philologists agree is our greatest 
help to critically learn the Hebrew and understand the 
genius of it. 

In Arabic we select the root itself — 

1. *>1 (bal, bald). Freytag thus defines bal: "To mois- 
ten, and especially to make wet or soft by sprinkling 

* It is to be hoped research in the Sanskrit may find the root of this 
word. We feel perfectly certain if it is found it will be as in the 
Hebrew and other languages. 



PRIMARY MEANING. 303 

or light affusion of liquid. VIII to bedew, be made 
wet." * 

Castell: " Bal, to moisten, and especially to make wet 
or soft by sprinkling," i. e. water. Lorshbach's Syriac 
Thesaurus — bal-confudit, to pour together. 

2. Arabic, bal-a-la, same root. Schindler: To sprinkle, 
make wet.f Gesenius : To moisten, to make wet by affu- 
sion of water [liquid], to sprinkle. J 

3. Babala (root bal, Gesenius). Buxtorf, Gesenius, 
Castell, all, " sprinkle." § 

4. ?23 (bal-al). This word in the Arabic Bible is the 
translation of Panno {bapto), and throws a flood of light 
on all this question from a philological standpoint. It 
bears exactly the primary relation to baptize in Hebrew 
that bapto does in Greek. Let us then give it at length 
as it is so directly and essentially related to baptism. 
Leigh in his Oritica Sacra gives "to pour, sprinkle."^f 
Castell : " To be sprinkled, to sprinkle." Schindler : " To 
pour, besprinkle, sprinkle." Gesenius: "To sprinkle, to 
moisten, make wet by affusion of water, sprinkle." But 
it does not stop with that meaning. It goes on and de- 
velops the following: "To sprinkle, make wet, moisten, 
dip, to water, make wet (Luke vii, 38, 44)," (equal to 
brecho) (Ps. vi, 7, (6) ; Luke xvi, 24, rendered from {fidizTio 
ifiSdnru)) bapto, embapto ; John xiii, 26, dip. It is repeat- 
edly used for " dip," "dip in." 

5. "^ naphal, na-bal, root bal. Targum, "pour out" 
(effundo, Castell). 

*MadeJicit, et spec, rigavit maceravit ve asperso aut leviter affuso hu- 
more. VIII. Maduit, rigatus fuit. 

tPerfudit, humectavit. 

%Rigavit, affuso humore madeficit, conspersit. 

§ Each gives " conspersit. ' 

^Conspersit; Castell, Perfudit, conspersit; Schindler, Fndit, perfu- 
dit, conspersit; Gesenius, same as No. 3 quoted. So Freytag. 



304 BAPTISM. 

6. 53HJ Sha-bal, "to flow, to pour." Fiirst, Arabic, "to 
rain, flow doWn." 

7. ^-? Abal, "rain." (Castell, Arabic), "moist." 

8. "^ bal, "rain." 

9. 5*0 6ttZ (6aQ, "to flow, stream forth copiously." 
Fiirst, etc. 

10. Mahal Arabic, ma-BAL-a, "to flow copiously, to 
moisten." 

11. 5.3J ya-BAEL, bat, the root, "to flow, to stream." 
Fiirst. 

12. M^jj wa-bal, Arab, to pour rain, to rain copiously 
and vehemently ; rain.* 

13. 53J 2/a-BAL, "to flow, to stream, to pour, drop 
down, moisten." Fiirst. 

Thus we see that affusion is in every word that has the 
root of the word baptize. More evidence is useless. Let 
us now test tab (2tt), Gesenius's idea of the root, and see 
if it is immerse. We have seen that his assumptions sus- 
tain us, but we do not want to be sustained by error. His 
position, too, crushes the immersion theory, as it makes 
"bedew," etc. come from immerse. 

Let us now take the words that have tab as their root, 
and see the meaning of such, Gesenius being one of the 
prominent judges. 

1. Ratab ( 2 ^"5), Gesenius defines thus: "To be wet, 
moisten with rain (Tob. xxiv, 8), also with sap . . . espec- 
[ially] of the moisture of juices of plants," etc. 

2. Natab ( 2 ?T.£), iEthiopic, same as the Hebrew shalabfi 
to distill or shed drops, as dew-water, etc. 

3. Nataph. Tab is the root — tab-taph : " To drop, fall 
in drops, to distill. ... In a similar manner the Arabs 

*Imbrem effudit, copiose et vekementer pluit . . . imber (Castell). 
t Castell and Fiirst, distillavit gutta. Heptaglotton, 2283. 



PRIMARY MEANING. 305 

transfer the idea of watering, irrigating" [or wet], etc. 
(Gesenius.) 

4. Zab, zuby is kindred to tab, with kindred meanings, 
to flow, of water, blood, etc. 

5. rpX Tsuph. In this word the ts stand for t, and 
tab is the root. It means "to pour, pour out, irrigate, 
flow." 

6. Shataph, tab the root, "to gush or pour out" (Ge- 
senius). This word comes to mean to immerse in later 
literature. AVe pass the blunders of Mr. Wilkes on the 
accusative, as the meaning of the word determines 
whether we regard it as accusative or dative in all these 
texts.* 

* Not one case where tabhal occurs has the noun the signs of the 
accusative. They are dative or accusative as the sense may require. 

26 



306 BAPTISM. 



CHAPTER XXVI. 

Tabhal. 

Seeing in the last chapter that all Hebrew lexicogra- 
phers sustain the position that to besprinkle or touch even 
the person with water, baptizes, let us examine this word 
in the Bible and rabbinic Hebrew. It occurs sixteen 
times in the Bible. In our English version, which, as 
the Baptists truly say, is only a revision of a former ver- 
sion — Tyndale, 1526-1534 — made by immersionists, and 
when Hebrew and Greek were but poorly understood as 
to philological principles, it is rendered dip in all the 
places where it occurs as a verb. Of it Mr. Wilkes (Lou- 
isville Debate p. 453), says, "It always means to immerse" 
Italics his. Again, " The word taval (tabhal) is used six- 
teen times in the Hebrew Bible,* and every time it means 
immersion." Now, what do Mr. W. and his colaborers in 
immersion mean by immerse? Evidently to sink clear 
and completely under the element, so that every part is 
enveloped, covered. That is what they mean. Now, a 
careful examination of each, of all, its occurrences will show 
and demonstrate that it never means immerse nor dip in 
their sense of that word. A few passages excepted, say 
about three, as Job viii, 31, the object to be obtained by 
tabhal was not dip in any sense, while immersion is wholly 

* It occurs sixteen times as noun and verb, thus : Leviticus x, 6, 17 
ix, 9; xiv, 6, 16, 54; Numbers xix, 18; Kuth ii, '14; Exodus xii, 22 
Deuteronomy xxxiii, 24; Job ix, 31; 1 Samuel xiv, 27; 2 Kings v, 14 
viii, 15; Joshua iii, 15; Genesis xxxvii, 31. 



TABHAL. 307 

out of the question in every case. The only object of the 
word, in about thirteen of the places where it occurs, was 
to wet the object slightly, moisten, saturate so as to sprin- 
kle objects. In some of these cases a partial dip would be 
most natural, and was the process, but in no case was there 
an immersion. Let us examine a few. 

1. In Exodus xii, 22, the blood is used to saturate, or 
moisten the bunch of hyssop. No mode is involved. The 
bunch of hyssop most naturally would be " touched to " 
the blood, moistened with it, very partially dipped. 

2. In Leviticus iv, 6, 17, the priest was to moisten his 
finger with the blood. A "mere touch" would do this — 
any contact. The finger in the case could not be im- 
mersed. In Exodus xii, 22; Leviticus iv, 17, the Greek 
is with, apo, by means of the blood ; Hebrew min — not in. 
This utterly forbids dip, as immersionists say apo " helps 
out" of the water (A. C). Or does apo mean "into" and 
"out of" both, just as it suits? It means neither of them. 

In Leviticus xiv, 6, it is impossible that "the living 
bird, and the cedar wood, and the scarlet, and the hyssop" 
should all be immersed "in the blood of the bird that was 
killed." It was done thus: "A stick of cedar wood was 
bound to a bunch of hyssop by a scarlet ribbon, and the 
living bird was to be attached to it; that when they dipped 
the branches in the water the tail of the bird might be 
moistened, but not the head nor the wings, that it might 
not be impeded in its flight when let loose."* The mois- 
tening of a part of the bird was baptizing the bird. In 
verse 51 he was to baptize the cedar wood, hyssop, scarlet, 
and living bird (Udorn) with the blood of the slain bird, 
and "with the running water" (Heb.). Only a part of 
the bird was made wet, yet the bird was baptized. 
* Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown's Commentary on Leviticus xiv, 6. 



308 BAPTISM. 



FIRST OCCURRENCE ON RECORD OF BAPTISM. 

In Genesis xxxvii, 31, is the first occurrence in the 
world of a baptism. As it is the oldest document in the 
world by a thousand years (save other Bible records), and 
older than any of the Bible occurrences by from four hun- 
dred to five hundred years, it is very important as showing 
the earlier and primary meaning of the word : 

"And they took Joseph's coat, and killed a kid of the 
goats, and dipped the coat in the blood ; and they sent the 
coat of many colors, and they brought it to their father" 
. . . (verse 33). "And he knew the coat; it is my son's 
coat ; an evil beast hath devoured him." * The Targum 
of Onkelos reads as the Hebrew, tabal, baptized with 
blood. 

1. The object in baptizing this toga or outward cloak 
was to impress the father that a wild beast had slain 
Joseph. 

2. In that day men were quick to detect, reading less 
than we, and thrown constantly upon their instincts and 
self-protection. Nor was Jacob noted for stupidity by 
any means. What beast or animal would submerge the 
outer garment in one's blood in slaying him ? It would 
be rent off first of all and receive but little of the blood 
comparatively. These men showed great cunning, and 
would not make the blunder of immersing the coat. 

3. The father, just as they intended, knew the coat "of 
many colors." If submerged in blood how many colors 
would it have had? 

4. The ancient versions take the same view, and are 
above all authorities on the meaning of the word. 

* C 5- n . 2 . n ?-" n - ^'??!1 vayyitbelu (tabhal) eih-hakuio-neth baddam 
— and baptized— sprinkled — the coat with the blood. 



TABHAL. 309 

(1) The Greek used by the apostles translate it sprin-. 
kle,* stain, i. e. by sprinkling. H. Stephanus says, " The 
primary meaning (of molunein) is to sprinkle." f 

(2) The Targum of Jacob Tawus renders it " bedashed," 
i. e. sprinkled with blood. 

(3) The Latin Vulgate (tingo), stained with blood. 

But the old Peshito-Syriac, the oldest and purest ver- 
sion and most literal in the world, translates it " sprinkle." 
It reads | p^.??]?) phalpheluh [or palpeluh, soft], sprin- 
kled with blood. It is remarkable that here this old, in- 
valuable version renders baptize by the other word we 
gave, balal, for its root is bal, as Gesenius and Fiirst show, 
and is thus rendered by Buxtorf in his folio lexicon 
of rabbinic Hebrew and Chaldee; for the Chaldee and 
Syriac are the same word, same meaning. 

'?.?? (phalphael), conspergere ; et conspersi pulvere glo- 
riam meam (phalphael) (Job xvi, 15) — "I have sprinkled 
my head (horns, glory, is the Hebrew) with dust." 

Esther iv, 1 : "And sprinkled (conspersus, phalphael) 
his head with ashes." Gesenius's Thesaurus: "Bal-al, 
same as Chaldee 51D, ^?? c > phalphal, conspersit; Syriac, 
phalphal conspersit; Chaldee and Syriac, to sprinkle." 

• Dr. Graves (Debate, p. 530) has only this answer to all these facts, 
after corresponding with Drs. Varden, Conant, Toy, etc., for help to aid 
in writing up a reply after the debate: "In one instance [Greek trans- 
lators] where (Gen. xxxvii, 31) they translated it [tabal~\ figuratively 
'to dye.' " That would be so if molunein did not mean sprinkle. But 
the Syriac has no figurative rendering, they put it sprinkle, and leave 
all sensible people to apply the effect of sprinkling blood on a garment. 
Passow, Rost, Palm, and Liddell & Scott all render molunein " sprinkle," 
besprengen. 

t Primitiva notio est conspergere. H. Stephanii Thesaurus Grecae 
Lin., v, p. 6223. Liddell & Scott: " Molvvu, to stain, sully, defile, sprin- 
kle," Sprinkle is the mode by which uolvvu, stained primarily. 

% (TTDZpV^ wephalpheluh lekietino, sprinkled the coat — tunic. 



310 BAPTISM. 

CastelPs Heptaglott: Phalphal, Syriac, " conspersit—? 
sprinkle." 

We will add one passage more of Hebrew now, where 
abhal occurs among the old Hebrew writers about or near 
Christ's day. 

" There was not any like to Benaiah, the son of Jeho- 
iada, under the second Temple. He one day struck his 
foot against a dead tortoise, and went down to Siloam, 
where, breaking all the little particles of hail, he baptized, 
vetabhal, himself. This was on the shortest day in win- 
ter, the tenth of the month Tebeth." Lightfoot's Horae 
Habraicae et Talmudicae, vol. 3, p. 292. 

It is useless to argue such a question as immersion or 
dipping here. Does it always mean immerse? Thus the 
root-meaning of the lexicons, the Bible use, and ancient 
Hebrew usage, and the translations, all agree that it is to 
sprinkle, to moisten. 



ANCIENT VERSIONS ON BAPTIDZO. 311 



CHAPTER XXVII. 

Ancient Versions on Baptidzo — The Syriac. 

All scholars, all linguistic critics, and all lexicographers 
are agreed that the ancient versions of the Hebrew and 
Greek Scriptures are all-important to lexicographers and 
expounders of the Word of God. All appeal to them as 
the very highest authority in determining the force and 
current meanings of the words of Scripture. Hence some 
have carried this to even a dangerous extent. Of this 
class we may name Dr. Gale, A. Campbell, Mr. Pendle- 
ton, of Bethany — all immersionists. The latter assumes 
that Christ, a in speaking to 'a ruler of the Jews/ did 
not use the Greek language." He tells us " he spoke in 
Hebrew or Aramaic," i. e. Syriac, all of which is true, but 
he uses it very doubtfully.* Gale assumes that the Pesh- 
ito-Syriac translation was made from the autographs of the 
apostles. That may be true, yet the assumptions based on 
it may not be true. A. Campbell tells us of "the origi- 
nal word used by the Savior in his native Syro-Chaldaic 
language." f 

1. The Syriac, or Syro-Chaldaic, as some call it, was 
the vernacular, the spoken language of the Messiah and 
his people in his day on earth. In it he preached habit- 
ually, as did his apostles generally. 

2. The translation known as the Peshito was executed, 

♦Millen. Harb. Nov., 1867, pp. 582-3. 

t Debate with Rice, and in Chris. Baptism, 135. 



312 BAPTISM. 

beyond all reasonable doubt, in the apostolic age, and as a 
rule at least, gives us the very words used by Christ in his 
sermons and discourses. Hence all of the most learned 
critics in the Syriac maintain that this version was made 
in the first century. Of these may be named the great 
Walton, Kennicott, S. Davidson, Lowth, Carpzov, Leus- 
den, Stiles, Palfrey; while Michaelis and Jahn put it at 
" the close of the first " or " the earlier part of the second 
century."* 

3. The Syriac being the tongue of Christ and his apos- 
tles, and of the great body of all the first Christians, it 
is absurd to suppose they did not have a translation of 
the Bible. The kings of Syria, in Edessa, were converted 
to Christianity in the middle of the apostolic age. It is 
absurd indeed to suppose they had no translation. 

4. All ancient traditions of all the Syrian churches, 
"Nestorian, Monophysite, Melchite, and Maronite, in 
all of which this version has been in public use time out 
of mind, and has ever been revered as coeval with the 
origin of those churches." 

5. They all held it to have been made therefore in the 

* "Walton, Prolegomena to his Polyglot, pp. 92-95, says, " For the 
New Testament being written in Greek, whose vernacular language was 
Syriac, every where savors of Syriacisms. Hence Ludovicus (author 
of a Syriac lexicon, etc.) affirms that the true import of the phraseology 
of the New Testament can scarcely be learned except from the Syriac." 
" They conceived in Syriac what they wrote in Greek." Pres. E. Stiles, 
D.D., of Yale College, says, " The greater part of the New Testament 
was originally written 'in Syriac,' and not merely translated, in the 
apostolic age." All the fathers held that Matthew, if not Mark and 
Hebrews, were written first in Syriac. Bolton held that " nearly all the 
epistles must have been first composed by the apostles in Aramaean 
(Syriac), their native tongue." The learned Bertholdt defends this view. 
" The Syriac translator has recorded the actions and speeches of Christ 
in the very language in which he spoke" (J. D. Michaelis). So held in 
almost the same words Martini, W. Francius, Palfrey, etc. 



ANCIENT VERSIONS ON BAPTTDZO. 313 

apostolic age. Hence its great purity and symplicity. 
Hence they say, "But the rest of the Old Testament 
[books] and of the New Testament were translated with 
great pains and accuracy by Thaddeus and the other 
apostles." No refutation of this can be adduced. 

6. Of this version Dr. Judd, indorsed and copied by 
Dr. J. R. Graves in the Appendix he published to M. 
Stuart on Baptism, says, a The old Syriac, or Peshito, is 
acknowledged to be the most ancient as well as one of 
the most accurate versions of the New Testament extant. 
It was made at least as early as the beginning of the sec- 
ond century, in the very country where the apostles lived 
and wrote, and where both the Syriac and the Greek were 
constantly used and perfectly understood. Of course it 
was executed by those who understood and spoke both 
languages precisely as the sacred writers themselves un- 
derstood and spoke them. . . All the Christian sects in 
Syria and the East make use of this version exclusively" 
(p. 245). 

7. Such a version thus executed was indorsed thus by 
the whole body of the apostolic ages and the scholarship 
of the whole Syrian church. Its renderings of baptidzo 
must be of the greatest moment, therefore. 

Dr. Gale (Baptist) says, " The Syriac must be thought 
almost as valuable and authentic as the original itself, 
being made from primitive copies in or very near the 
times of the apostles." By primitive he tells us what he 
means — ' * The autograph " of the apostles. Reflections 
on Wall, vol. 2, 118. 

Origen, born only eighty-three to eighty-five years 
after John's death, cites the Peshito as a familiar version 
already long in use. It was cited a.d. 220 as an estab- 
lished standard of authority. Ephraem Syrus quotes one 
27 



314 BAPTISM. 

who wrote thus who treats it as established in his day. 
So valuable is it that Gotch, A. Campbell, Conant, Judd, 
all head their list of versions with the venerable Peshito. 
The truth is, that if it were not executed till the sec- 
ond century, it uses the words for baptism used by Christ 
and the apostles any way. Of that no one would express 
a doubt. 

AMAD IS BAPTIDZO. 

The Peshito translates baptidzo by amad. It is all- 
important now to know the exact meaning of amad. 

Dr. Judd (Baptist) says, "All the authorities agree in 
assigning to this word the primary and leading significa- 
tion of immersion."* Dr. Judd copies fsom the real 
Castell, and not from Michaelis's edition, abridged, which 
leaves off the important word involved here. 

We now quote the lexicons as they are. 

Castell: This great work, embodying three hundred 
years of labor, by native Arabians, Jews, native Syrians, 
being based on two lexicons on the Syriac part, made by 
Syrians centuries before, and the equivalent of nineteen 
of the greatest scholars all Europe produced in that re- 
nowned age, the seventeenth century, defines amad thus : 

"Amadrf primarily, to wash [literally to be cleansed or 

-Appendix to Graves's M. Stuart, p. 246. Since the above was 
written, Dr. Graves (Debate, p. 530) says, Amad in Syriac, as all stand- 
ard lexicographers testify, primarily signifies to immerse." A. Camp- 
bell (Chris. Bap., pp. 135-6) says essentially the same. Dr. G. never 
uttered such a sentiment during the debate. That, like nearly all else after 
the first few speeches, was rewritten, and so was never seen by me till 
the book was out. "We loaned our Castell to Dr. Graves, and he knew 
what it said. 

tAmad, Prim, ablutus est, baptizatus est (Matt, iii, 16; Luke xix 
11, 38, etc.; Matt, iii, 7, etc.; Luke vii, 30). Aph [for Aphel, derivative] 
immersit (Num. xxxi, 24) ; baptizavit (Acts xix, 4, 16, etc.) ; ablutio, bap- 
tizatio, baptizatus, lavacrum. 



ANCIENT VERSIONS ON BAPTIDZO. 315 

washed], to baptize." Matt, iii, 16, etc.; Luke xix, 11, 
38, etc. ; Matt, iii, 7, etc. 

"Aphel [i. e. derivatively], to immerse (Num. xxxi, 24). 
Noun from mamudhitho, cleansing, baptism, washing." 
Arabic — same word, same root — "to baptize, to make 
wet with rain."* Under amak, "The Arabians also lisp 
in pronouncing amak, amath, amad, amat — to be immersed, 
to bedew, sprinkle with water [or rain] (the earth, herbs, 
etc.), sprinkle with water [rain or dew]. A horse wet 
with water, also sprinkled. Morning dew, also wetting 
the earth, field, bedewed, sprinkled with dew [or rain] 
wetting, etc." f 

J. Michaelis's amad, to wash, baptize. Aphel [i. e. deriv- 
atively] to immerse. % 



PESHITO SYKIAC. 

Oberleitner : "Amad, to cleanse [or wash], to baptize. 
Derivatively, aphel, to immerse, to baptize." § 

♦Arabic, amada ; baptizavit ; A. madore pluvice affecta fuit. 

t Arabic, et balbulivit in pronunciatione (i. e. amath, amad, amat), im- 
mersus fuit, maduit, rore perfusa fuit (terra, terba, etc.), rore perfusa. 
Equus aqua rigcetus, et perfusus. Res matutinus, et terram irrigans. . . 
Rore per fusus, mademus, etc. (Heptoglotton, Ed. Castell, 280). 

t As Michaelis is misquoted in his note to the abridgment from Cas- 
tell we give it. Mihi verisimilius, diversum plane ab literarumque 
aliqua permutatione ortum ex gamotha, submergere. That is, he simply 
urges (1) That amad does not mean in Syriac to stand, as some thought; 
(2) That he thinks that there has been an exchange of letters, that it 
should be gamatha instead of amad. — a perfect absurdity. Yet Dr. Graves 
boldly tells us in substance that M. says it is immerse, etc. On deriva- 
tive Aphel, Dr. Green's Heb. Gram., p. 101, sec. 77, a may be con- 
sulted, where it answers in Hebrew to " derivative verbs," in Greek and 
Latin. (See Hoffman's Syr. Gram., etc. in detail.) 

\ Amad, ablutus, baptizatus est. Aphel amed immersit, baptizavit. 



316 BAPTISM. 

4. Catafago: "Amad, the being wet with rain."* This 
is the only meaning he gives it. 

5. Schaaf : "Amad, to cleanse [or wash] oneself; to be 
washed, to be dipped, to be immersed in water, to be bap- 
tized." He then supposes it to be of a word spelled like it 
in Hebrew; then he gives the Arabic through its conjuga- 
tions; then resumes the Syriac, giving it baptize all the 
time. Then — 

"Aphel [derivatively], to immerse, to baptize. To im- 
merse (Numbers xxxi, 23). To baptize (Acts i, 5; xi, 16; 
xix, 4). 

llamudhitho (noun), baptism, place of baptism, washing, 
cleansing.f 

6. Hottinger, 1661, a lexicon of Hebrew, Chaldaic, 
Arabic, Syriac, etc., etc. : "Amad, to baptize " (baptizare). 

7. Gutbier: "Amad, to baptize, to be baptized." He 
then gives "to support" as the meaning all now reject, 
because it was based on the old false assumption of kin- 
dredship with the Hebrew word " to stand," followed by 
Gesenius. 

8. Gesenius: "Among the Syriac Christians amad is 
to be baptized, because the person baptized stood in the 
water." J 

9. Schindler, 1612: "Amad, Arabic amada, to be bap- 
tized, to be immersed in water, to be wet, to be washed ; 

* Catafago, secretary to Soliman Pasha, 1839-40, etc., corresponding 
member of the Asiatic societies of Paris and Leipsig, of the Syro-Egyp- 
tian Society of London, translator of various Oriental works, living in 
Aleppo, in Syria, in Beirut, etc. 1858. It is an Arabic lexicon. 

t " Amad, abluit se, abilities, intinctus, immersus in aquam, bapti- 
zatus est. Aphel anted, immersit, baptizavit. Immersit (Num. xxxi, 23); 
baptizavit (Acts i, 5, etc.). Noun — baptismus,-ma,-terium; lotio, ablutio." 

%Apud Syros Christianos [amad) est baptizatus est, quia baptizandus 
stabat in aqua. 



ANCIENT VERSIONS ON BAPTIDZO. 317 

for they who were baptized stand up,* ... to wash one- 
self," etc. 

Schindler so mixes the Syriac and Arabic it is impos- 
sible to tell which meaning is meant, particularly tor the 
Syriac and Arabic. The fact he and Gesenius state is true, 
but not because of kindredship in the Hebrew and Syriac 
word. But it was an early custom for the candidates to 
stand " immersed in the water" "to be baptized," noticed 
elsewhere. 

Beza is often quoted as saying amad is always immerse. 
He says of " baptizein, to dye, to moisten {madefacere) , to 
immerse," and argues this in the old style; then adds, 
"Neither is there any other meaning of the word amad 
which the Syrians use for baptize." f Beza then finds 
" wash, cleanse," in baptidzo by consequence, then pour as 
the mode. 

I have Lorsbach's great folio work, but it is not yet 
completed as far as to amad or any word relating to bap- 
tism, being in numbers issued as fast as they can. 

Now, then, we have — 

1. All these Syriac lexicographers, equal to some twen- 
ty-five, giving wash (cleanse) as the primary meaning of 
amad. 

2. Not one gives immerse as the primary meaning. 

3. Not one gives immerse as a current meaning. 

4. All give immerse both as a derived meaning and as 
a rare one. 

5. Not one gives immerse as a New Testament mean- 
ing, and they could find but one place in the whole Old 

*Syr., amad; Arabic, amad baptizatus, in aquam immersus, tinctus, 
lotus fuit : Stobant enim qui baptizabantur, . . . sese abluisset. 

t Tingere, cum napa to fiaKTUv dicatur, et cum tingenda mergantur y 
madefacere, et mergere. Then — " Nee alia est signification etc. 



318 BAPTISM. 

Testament where amad meant immerse; and in that place 
the Hebrew and Greek have not the words for baptize. 

6. Over and again it means to sprinkle, to wet with 
dew, wet with rain, bedew — all being cases of sprinkling. 

7. I had the pleasure of finding where the Greek word 
louo (Xovai), to wash, pour,* is twice translated amad in 
Susanna xii, 6; xiii, 15, in London Polyglott of Walton. 

8. In John v, 2, 4, 7 ; ix, 7 : " Go wash at [or in] the 
baptistery," shows that amad in its noun-form expressed 
the nipto, wash, which was simply application of water, not 
dipping. 

9. The Peshito, or the translation of Revelation, made 
only a little later, translates bapto by " to sprinkle." f 

10. It translates tabhal, Greek, baptidzo (2 Kings v, 14), 
by secho, wash, a word never meaning dip or immerse, but 
primarily "to pour." It applies — secho does — in the an- 
cient Targums when Joseph " washed his face." In the 
New Testament it applies (secho) to washing a dead body, 
as that of Dorcas, wetting a couch with tears, etc. J 

11. In the first case of the Hebrew word for baptize in 
all literature (Gen. xxxvii, 31) it is translated sprinkle by 
the Peshito. § Such are the facts in this great version. 

12. And it is worthy of remark, that in no case have 
the Hebrew words for immerse, tabha, Jcaphash, shakha, or 
the Greek words budthidzo, hataduo, pontidzo, katapontidzo, 
immerse, or dupto, dip, or bapto, sometimes to dip — em- 
bapto dip, ever been translated in Syriac or Arabic by 
amad. If amad was immerse, why not do this ? 

* See under Wash. No lexicon had as yet made that discovery, nor 
writer. See it in Carrollton Debate, p. 148. 

t Kevelation xix, 13, zelach, " sprinkled with blood." 

$ Hottinger defines the root-syllable, sacha, " to pour out," effudit. 
Castell, effudit aquam, profudit. In Arabic, " vehement rain." 

§ See all the quotations and facts Chapter XXIII of this work. 



ANCIENT VERSIONS ON BAPTIDZO. 319 

13. But the old Syriac has another word for baptize, 
in ancient Syriac and Arabic, tseva; tsavagh in Arabic, or 
tsavaga. The ancient sect known as Sabeans or Tsabeans, 
derived their name from daily baptizing.* Baptist writ- 
ers think tseva was the word used by Christ in the com- 
mission.f They insist tseva always means immerse. It is 
the same in Syriac, Chaldee, and Arabic. 

(1) The great Oriental philologist and scholar of the 
present age in Hebrew and kindred languages, was Fiirst, 
Professor of Hebrew, etc. in Leipsic, Germany. He thus 
defines it as late as 1867-8 : " Tseva, to moisten, to be- 
sprinkle, to baptize; Paal (form), to water, to moisten." 
To besprinkle, to moisten, is its " fundamental significa- 
tion." 

(2) Gutbier defines it "to moisten, to wash" (lavit). 

14. But let us test this word in the Bible. In Daniel 
is the only place where it occurs in Chaldee — the only 
place where tseva occurs in the Old Testament original 
(Daniel iv, 20), "And his body was baptized (tseva) with 
the dew of heaven." Was this dipping? O, cries the 
immersionist, " dews are very heavy in Chaldea, and his 
body was as wet as if immersed ! " Indeed ! But no 
matter how copious the dew, it does not read " as wet as 
if dipped or immersed." It uses no metaphor either. It 
is as historic and unmetaphorical as when it says " the 
people were baptized." It is as literal as when it says 
" Philip baptized him," the eunuch. " His body was bap- 

* See the Note in Michaelis's edition of Castell : Scebii nomen Men- 
dceosum, i. e. discipulorum Joannes, qui ita a baptizando dicti, baptistce, 
seu, ut Grceci illos vocant rjfiepo — fiairTiorai. See Neander's Church Hist., 
also, and Gieseler. 

t Dr. Graves (Debate, 390), as published, says, " In this [the Nesto- 
rian Ritual of Syria] the verb amad is used interchangeably with tsevce, 
which has no other meaning but to immerse." He used not a sentence in 
all that published speech in the spoken one. 



320 BAPTISM. 

tized with the dew from heaven." It was a literal man, 
literal dew, a literal baptism. 

15. The Vulgate of Jerome, a.d. 380-383, translates 
this : "And his body was sprinkled with the dew of heav- 
en." * In the Chaldee it is repeated four times. In verse 
22, the Vulgate again reads, " His body shall be sprink- 
led (Chaldee, baptized) with the dew of heaven." f As 
Jerome was the ablest Syriac scholar and Hebrew in all 
the church save in the Syriac branch at that time, and his 
version was sustained by all scholars, it certainly is con- 
clusive on this point. 

16. Psalm vi, 6 [in the Hebrew 7], " My couch have 
I baptized (tseva) with my tears." What was the mode ? 

SYRIAC VERSIONS. 

17. Ezekiel xxii, 26: "Thou art the land that is not 
(tzeva) baptized [English, purified] ; no, upon thee the rain 
has not fallen." J We know the mode of this baptizing. 
We need no lexicons to aid us. 

18. Luke vii, 38, 44. Remember that most likely we 
have here word for word the very words in the language 
Jesus used; for it is his vernacular, as the English is 
yours. It occurs twice in the same sense. " Simon, into 
thy house I came ; water upon my feet you gave me not 
[so runs the Syriac], but she [the woman] with her tears 
my feet hath baptized ! " We know the mode. We need 
no lexicon. I would not give one such witness as this — 
being in the very age of the apostles, in the very language 
in which Christ and his apostles preached, made in such a 

*Et rore cceli conspergatur. 
~\Et rore cceli infunderis. 
%Metro, necheth. 



ANCIENT VERSIONS ON BAPTIDZO. 321 

language by such men, universally received as true to the 
Greek when all that membership knew what apostolic 
preaching and practice were — I would not give one such 
authority for a thousand lexicons written fifteen hundred 
years after the death of the apostles, and after the Dark 
Ages with their superstitions had rolled between. 

In the light of these facts, we see Castell translate 
tseva by " to moisten, imbue (Is. lxiii, 3) ; to immerse, to 
baptize (by immersion), to pour out, baptism," etc.* So 
Schindler: "To moisten, to dip in dye or liquid, imbue or 
infect, color, wash, moisten, to water, to baptize." f 

Such are some of the facts on this word. Yet they tell 
us it always means to immerse. Even M. Stuart, with 
strangest inconsistency, pointed to this word as one defi- 
nitely meaning to dip, immerse ! when it was the very 
word translated bapto in Theodotian which in those very 
places he insisted were " gentle aifusions." It shows the 
carelessness of great and good men on this subject at least. 

In the Koran this word (chap, xxxiii, 20 or 21) occurs 
"in the sense of syrup, juice, or sap."{ 

*Tinxit, imbuit (Is. lxiii, 3), immersit, baptizavit (perimmersionem), 
effudit, boptismics. 

t Schindler: Tinxit (of tseva), intinxit, colore vel humore, imbuit seu 
infecit, coloravit, lavit, madefecit, rigavit, baptizavit. Gesenius : Pual and 
Ith— the only form it has in the Bible—" to wet, moisten, to be wet, 
moistened." While Gesenius is careful to tell us it means dip, immerse, 
in Hebrew, when the word never occurs a single time in all the Hebrew 
language, and to dye, in the Targums, is it a merit after this blunder, to 
fail to tell us it is one of the leading words for wash in the Targums? It 
not only translates tabal, but frequently translates rachats, "to wash,' 
" pour." It is the word in the Targum in Leviticus viii, 6, where Aaron 
and his sons are washed "with water" — rachats in Hebrew, while in 
the Syriac and Targum of Onkelos, it is secho, wash. In Numbers xix, 
10, 19, wash is tzeva in the same, as well as verses 7 and 8. 

t Its root is defined by Furst, to pour, trickle, drop, etc. Gesenius: 
" To flow, to trickle ; of water, to pour." 



322 BAPTISM. 

In Assemanni Bibliotheca Orienatlis we read of a dis- 
tinguished bishop named Simeon Bar Tsaboe, who was 
martyred, "and he indeed (tzeva) baptized his garments 
with the blood of his own body."* 



AMAD IN SYRIAC LITERATURE. 

Dr. Gotch, Elder Wilkes (Lou. Debate, p. 579), and 
Dr. Varden urge that the following text is in favor of im- 
mersion, viz: "And that yet, at a small river that same 
head of thine should be subject to be bowed down and 
baptized in it" (Bible Questions, p. 130, by Gotch). We 
observe — 

1. This is in the fourth century after Christ, as they tell 
us. We freely admit immersion was often practiced in 
those later centuries, though affusion was practiced as well. 

2. He was baptized, even in their version of Ephraem, 
not in, but "at the river" — "at a small river" (Le- 
nahero). Hence it was not immersion. 

3. If his whole body was immersed, why speak only of 
his head as bowed "at the small river," which was clearly 
to receive the water poured upon it? No one bows his 
head simply to be immersed when the whole body is put 
under. 

4. The figure of Ephraem is, that as the waters of the 
sea were subjected to Christ's feet, so now his head is 
bowed in subjection to the waters of Jordan, poured upon 
it in baptism. The rendering "in it" is equally literal — 
"with it," the waters of the "insignificant stream." 

5. All ancient pictures of Christ's baptism represent 
him as standing "at the river," head bowed, to receive 
the water poured upon it, while John stands with a little 

* Tomus i, 2. 



ANCIENT VERSIONS ON BAPTIDZO. 323 

vessel pouring the water on his head. No such ancient 
picture represents him as immersed. 

6. We relied on the old Peshito version made in the 
apostolic age and the greatest of lexicons to define the 
words when lexicons are appealed to as evidence. The 
forced rendering of Hebrews vi, 4, " Who once submitted 
to baptism "* by "descending into the baptistery/'f is suf- 
ficiently refuted by the fact that no such innovation as a 
baptistery was in existence in all the Christian Church till 
the third and fourth centuries.]; 

5. Bernstein confounds amad with the Arabic gahmat, 
immerse, another word altogether. There is no dip in the 

* Lemamudhitho nechtho, " submisit," as well as " descendit" and ma- 
mudhitho is baptism, the noun in the New Testament. See Schaaf s 
Syr. Lex. N. T. 

t Since the above was written, Dr. Graves, who in the debate could 
not be induced by any process to try to meet my facts on the Syriac and 
the later versions, in his clandestine way of rewriting his speeches with 
mine before him, and by accident a part of which, repassing through 
Memphis, I saw and hastily answered in transit, professes to cite Bern- 
stein's lexicon to Kirch's Chrestomathy, and renders amad, " he was dip- 
ped, ... he dipped, etc. The point of the arrow sank into his brain," 
etc. We reply, 1. He fails to give us the original, and we know his utter 
unreliability. 2. Kirch's Chrestomathy is made up of the Syriac in its 
latest stage, its death-struggles in the thirteenth and later centuries, es- 
pecially on Bar-Hebraeus, who wrote half Arabic half Syriac dialect in 
the last part of the thirteenth century. This is a little late. 3. Bern- 
stein's lexicon is only a partial lexicon or glossary, defining words found 
in this late author, and as \ised by him, not as used in the Bible. Why 
quote such a work? 4. Dr. G. falsely translates the lexicon all the 
way through, as well as Bar Ali ! He renders mersus, immersit se, dip- 
ped, yet the same word he in the same sentence translates " sank" 
where the arrow sank, "immersit se" — immersed itself into the brain. 

% Stuart on Baptism, by J. R. Graves, p. 183: "This practice of 
building baptisteries is well known to be an innovation upon the more 
ancient usage of the church. In the time of Justin Martyr [a.d. 166] 
there were no such accommodations as these." So Wall, vol. 2, p. 457-8; 
Hist. Inf. Bap.; and cites the great historian Bingham to prove they 
existed not till about fourth century. 



324 BAPTISM. 

whole glossary on this word. Bar-Hebraeus cites "the 
great Basil " to justify his superstitious ideas of the 
wonderful virtue of water — "From the beginning [the 
Holy Spirit] infused life into the waters" (in Gen. i, 2). 
Hence their immersion theory to absorb the sanctifying 
virtues of the water ! 

Dr. G. actually translates Gutbier's word " baptizavit" 
on amad by " immerse " ! ! (p. 388). He copies Dr. Var- 
den's renderings on Bar-Hebrseus, thirteenth century, still, 
where Bar-Heb. comments on Job xli, 1, saying the levi- 
athan " plunged in the depths of the sea." How could a 
leviathan, that was already in the depths of the sea, 
"plunge" or "dip" himself, in a Baptist sense of dip? 
He was already under the water. What is the meaning, 
then? And this is the best they can do to meet our 
crushing facts ! 

There is no record or hint of such. In the days of 
Justin Martyr, the middle of the second century, of Iren- 
seus and Tertullian, no baptistery was known. 

But though we rely on the Bible facts, or versions of 
that book, let us take up the literature of the Nestorians 
and Syrians generally, and see the result. 

Dr. G. (p. 389) cites Numbers xxxi, 23 (24) : "All that 
abideth not the fire ye shall plunge it (Syriac, amad) in 
water." First, this is the only place in the Bible where 
Castell, Schaaf, etc. could find amad used for, as they 
thought, immerse ; second, it is not a case of baptism, as 
in the Hebrew and Greek no word is used that is ever 
used for baptism; third, there is no proof of immersion 
in the text. The Hebrew phrase so rendered is in the 
Vulgate rendered, "Shall be sanctified by the water of 
expiation." 

Dr. G. tells us, then (p. 389), " ' His grand old Syriac 



ANCIENT VEESIONS ON BAPTIDZO. 325 

version supports' my position that Romans vi, 4, refers to 
water baptism ! " But he says not how ; why ? It reads 
in the Syriac exactly as in our English version, and has 
not a drop of water in it. " Therefore (or for) we are 
[present tense] buried with him by baptism into death" — 
lemauntho. The great Walton renders it in Latin, Sepulti 
enim sumus cum eo per baptisma ad mortum. Where is the 
support? He makes the baptism of Christ (Luke xii, 50; 
Mark x, 38, 39), as all modern immersionists do, refer 
to his "sinking in a flood of afflictions" etc! All the 
fathers, as shown, Syriac, Latin, Greek, refer that bap- 
tism to the blood and water on the cross baptizing him. 

AMAD IN LITERATURE. 

1. In a discussion among the ancient Syrian churches, 
on many things, they name the matters of the form of the 
verb they use, amad, and say, "When he baptizes, even 
with the invocation of the Trinity, and with a washing 
of natural water, immersion, or sprinkling, it is not true 
baptism," " unless the proper word is used also." * 
Again, "If, when he baptizes, he uses that [form of amad~] 
for the present imperative, if other things are right, espe- 
cially the intention, immersion in natural water, ablution, 
or sprinkling, with the invocation," etc.f 

2. In Bibliotheca Orientalis, vol. 4, page 260, we read, 
"When Christ the Lord was baptized in the Jordan, say 
Simeon the Presbyter and John Zugbi, John the Baptist 
filled a little vessel with the water that flowed from his 
sacred body, and preserved it until the day he was be- 
headed, when he delivered it into the custody of his dis- 

* Bibliotheca Orientalis, torn, iv, CCL (250), ablutio, immersione, vel 
aspersione, in Latin. 

1[Ibid. } in aquam naturalem immersio, ablutio, vel aspersio, etc. 



326 BAPTISM. 

ciple, John the Evangelist. To this same John the Evan- 
gelist, they add, when Christ instituted the eucharistic 
supper, and distributed a part to each of the apostles, he 
gave a double portion; the rest of which he took, and 
delivered in the same way as the other — in a little vessel 
of water. And, afterward, he poured into this same ves- 
sel the water which flowed from the side of Christ when 
hanging on the cross ; and the blood that flowed from his 
side he mixed with the eucharistic bread. This, they say, 
was the leaven of the eucharist, that the leaven of bap- 
tism. For the apostles, after they had received the Holy 
Spirit, before they went forth, divided this water and 
eucharistic bread among themselves, which they were to 
use as an element in administering baptism." Now — 

1. We cite this not as a fact, but as showing what 
those ancient Syrians believed as to Christ's baptism and 
that practiced under the apostles. 

2. Christ is believed to have stood in Jordan to be 
baptized. The water was poured on his head, and " flowed 
down his sacred side." 

3. The amount put in little water- vessels, caught from 
his side thus and from the cross, was sufficient for bap- 
tizing. Hence it was not immersion. 

4. In the same great Syriac compilation (torn, iii, 357), 
the Syrians thus held as to baptism. There are seven 
kinds of baptism recorded: 1. . . . washing. 2. Legal 
baptism, purifications according to the law of Moses. 3. 
Baptism ... of cups, brazen vessels, couches, etc. ... 6. 
Baptism of blood — I have a baptism to be baptized with,"* 
etc. 7. Baptism of tears — mamudhitho dheme. 

* Syr., moro ve mamunutho aith h dhemad. Yet immersionists per- 
sist in referring the baptism referred to here to " overwhelming " suf- 
ferings in the garden, and to " sinking in a, flood of afflictions " ! Heavy 
on flood. 



ANCIENT VERSIONS ON BAPTIDZO. 327 

1. These are all recorded as literal baptisms under the 
head — Al mamudthitho — baptism . 

2. No one will contend that the blood shed in martyr- 
dom, and that which was shed by Christ on his own body 
was immersion. 

3. Baptism with tears was not a clear case of dipping. 
Such are the facts in the Syriac. Of course they often 
immersed " in the Dark Ages/' and as often mersed the 
party waist deep or more, and baptized by affusion. 

Once more, let it be remembered that the three He- 
brew words that definitely mean immerse, the one that 
often applies to a partial dip, tabhal, and the numerous 
Greek words for dip and immerse — buthidzo, kataduo, kata- 
pendizo — immerse, are in no case in all the Bible trans- 
lated by amad in either Syriac or Arabic. Why did they 
not do so if that word meant in that day immerse? Dip 
occurs repeatedly in our English versions in both Testa- 
ments, but never is the original of such places amad in 
Syriac or Arabic. 



328 BAPTISM. 



CHAPTER XXVIII. 
The Arabic Version. 

Dr. Gotch says, " Of native words employed by the 
Syriac, the Arabic, iEthiopic, Coptic, etc. all signify to 
immerse." Of course Drs. A. Campbell, Graves, Judd, 
Wilkes, Brents, etc. follow suite in this assertion as well 
as Ingham. 

This and all Arabic versions, having the same render- 
ings of baptidzo, were made when the Arabic was the lan- 
guage of renown, and led the intellectual world. At this 
time, "the Saracen Empire [Arabic] was dotted all over 
with colleges, ... in Mesopotamia, Syria, Egypt, North 
Africa," etc. (Draper). They made translations of Plato, 
Aristotle, the Iliad, Hippocrates, Galen, etc. etc. from the 
Greek. There were seventy public libraries in one single 
province. One man spoke seventy-two dialects. The 
royal court was rather an academy of learning than of 
statecraft. Amid this blaze of intellectual light and 
knowledge of Greek the Arabic versions were made. Ge- 
senius says, " In every respect the most perfect source of 
Hebrew etymology and lexicography is the Arabic," "to 
it [the Arabic] belongs the first place among all this class 
of philological auxiliaries" (Bib. Repos. 18, 33). 

1. These versions render baptidzo by amada, the same 
as amad in Syriac just examined. 

2. It is rendered over and again by tsavagha, the same 
as the Syriac tseva, which see in the last chapter. 



THE AEABIC VERSION. 329 

3. They translate it by gasala (Luke xi, 38; Mark vii, 
4), and its nouns, baptismos and baptisma (Heb. vi, 2; 
Mark vii, 4, 8) by the noun-form of gasala. Of gasala, 
to baptize, wash, besprinkle — 

(1) No lexicon in existence renders it by dip, or plunge, 
or immerse. 

(2) Castell, who had native Arabians to assist him, 
renders it " to wash, to cleanse, etc. To be sprinkled with 
water, to wash diligently, to wash off the body (members), 
to wash oneself, etc., to moisten, to be sprinkled, ... to 
besprinkle." * It occurs for washing the face (Matt, vi, 
17; Ps. lxxiii, 13; Lev. viii, 6), and when the head is 
sprinkled with rose-water, etc. 

In the face of the fact that not a lexicon — neither Go- 
lius, Freytag, Kosegarten, Catafago, nor the great Castell — 
gives dip, or immerse, or plunge, or sink for gasala, or 
its nouns, but define it by wash, cleanse, where it applies 
to washing the face, the members, dead bodies, and sprin- 
klings, what are we to think of such assertions, not to 
name the facts of the first chapter, and those next to 
come? 

Gasala repeatedly translates nipto, to wash the hands, 
that means to rain (Job xx, 23) ; e. g. brecho in Sym- 
machus's version — rain in ours. Yet the word that trans- 
lates such a word translates baptidzo. 

CODEX VATICANUS, FOURTH CENTURY. 

The great Codex Vaticanus, about A. D. 325, translates 
baptidzo by sprinkle (Mark vii, 4).f It being the Jew- 

* Castell, gasala, lavit, abluit, etc., sudore, perfusus fuit, . . . diligen- 
ter lavit, perluit membra, se abluit, etc. ; maduit, perfusis fuit, . . . in- 
spergit. 

t BaTTTiocbvrai is rendered there fravrtoavTai, besprinkle. 

28 



330 BAPTISM. 

ish baptism, unauthorized by Christ, the copyist translates 
it into its mode in that place. 

CODEX SINAITICUS, A. D. 325. 

This great copy of the Bible, with seven other ancient 
ones, translates baptisontai (Mark vii, 4) by sprinkle.* 

ITALA AND VULGATE. 

The Itala, made in the second century by converts of 
the apostolic age, is, next to the Peshito, the most valuable 
translation we have. Jerome's Vulgate and it are the 
same on those points : 

1. They transfer baptidzo in every instance in the New 
Testament, not translating it at all. 

2. They translate tqbal (Greek, baptidzo) (2 Kings v, 14) 
by wash, too (wash, bedew, sprinkle). 

3. They translate bapto, sprinkle (Rev. xix, 13). 

4. They translate the Chaldee for baptize, same as Syriac 
and Arabic, tzeva, by "to sprinkle" twice. f 

5. They never translate either baptidzo or tabal by im- 
merse. 

^ethiopic veesion. 

Of this version that zealous Baptist, Dr. Gale, says, 
" The Syriac and iEthiopic versions, which for their an- 
tiquity must be thought almost as valuable and authentic 
as the original itself, being made from primitive copies, in or 
very near the times of the apostles, and rendering the pas- 

* BarrTiauvrat is rendered pavTiouvrai. 
■j- Daniel iv, conspergatur, infunderis. 



THE ARABIC VERSION. 331 

sage (Num. xix, 13, bapto) by words that signify to sprinkle, 
. . . very strongly argue that he (Origen) has preserved 
the same word which was in the autograph." * 

This is more just of the Syriac, Sahidic, and Itala. 
The iEthiopic has a word expressing definitely to immerse, 
maab, "to overflow, submerse." It is never used for bap- 
tize, etc. Now this version renders — 

1. Bapto by to sprinkle, as Dr. Gale observes. 

2. It renders (katharismos) purification, always per- 
formed by sprinklings (see John ii, 6; Heb. ix, 13, 19, 
21; Num. viii, 7; xix, 13-15) by baptism. 

3. It never renders baptize by immerse or any word 
equivalent to dip. 

4. It renders baptidzo tamak, which Castell renders, "to 
be baptized, to baptize." Neither he nor Hottinger ren- 
ders it by dip, plunge, or immerse. It is the same as tam- 
ash in other Oriental versions — same word. Schindler 
renders it in Hiphil form (derivative meaning) by plunge, 
wet, dip, wash, and gives Psalm vi, 7, " baptized my couch 
with my tears," as his first proof-text.f It is kindred 
with tamal also, which never implies immersion, but con- 
stantly applies to affusions. It renders John v, 4 ; ix, 7, 
Siloam, where the people washed by baptistery, as the 
Syriac. Castell gives both plunge and moisten — rigavit, 
always affusion — as meanings of tamash. 

5. This version renders baptidzo by mo, moi — "water." 
It is the same root with moh — " sprinkle with water, pour, 
rain, water, juice, fluid, water."! M'ho, moisten, pour. 

* Reflect, on Wall's Hist. Inf. Bap., Letter V, vol. 2, 118, ed. of 1862. 

t Hiphil of tamash, mersit, tinxit, intinxit, lavit (Ps. vi, 7), lique- 
faciam. 

% Castell, aqua, perfusus est, pluviam fudit, . . . aqua . . . aquam, 
etc. — no immersion. Hottinger, tinxit, baptizavit, moisten, baptize. 
iEthiopic, rriho liquescere, hquefieri, fundi. Castell, 2003. 



332 BAPTISM. 

Here is one of the words translated from baptidzo that 
simply means to water, without specifying mode, while 
the same word essentially, same root, means to sprinkle 
with water, water, pour, rain. So testifies this great 
author. 

The Amharic, a later version, renders it as the one just 
noticed generally, and need not be noticed separately. 



THE COPTIC. 

This version of the third century, made in Egypt 
where learning was then in a high state of cultivation, 
translates — 

1. Bapto by sprinkle (Rev. xix, 13). 

2. It renders baptidzo by tamaka, same as the above in 
iEthiopic, a word of affusion. 

3. It never renders it by immerse. 



EGYPTIAN, THIRD CENTURY. 

In the third century the Egyptian version was made. 

1. It renders baptidzo by oms, which is of the same 
root as amada, amad in Syriac and Arabic, wash, baptize, 
sprinkle, make wet. 



BASMURIC, THIRD CENTURY. 

1. This version translates bapto by sprinkle in Revela- 
tion xix, 13. 

2. It habitually transfers baptidzo. 

3. It never renders baptidzo by immerse, dip, or 
plunge. 



THE ARABIC VERSION. 333 



SAHIDIC, SECOND CENTURY. 

1. It transfers baptidzo. 

2. It never renders it immerse. 

3. It translates bapto sprinkle (Rev. xix, 13). 

While we only have these facts from these versions, 
we regret we have not copies of them personally ; for then 
no doubt our researches would bring out valuable and 
startling facts as in the Syriac, Arabic, Vulgate, and 
ancient literature, etc. Having the Persic we are enabled 
to give more light on it, however. 



PERSIC. 

The Persic renders baptidzo by several words. It has 
a word (autha) meaning emphatically to immerse. See 
Golius in Castell, p. 408. But it never renders baptidzo 
by it or any word implying immersion. It renders bap- 
tidzo — 

1. By sustan, shustidan, thus defined in Golius's lex- 
icon: Washing, baptism; to wash (besprinkle, cleanse); 
washing, cleansing, baptize. [Lavacrum, baptismus, la- 
vare.] Gen. xvii, 4; xix, 2; Ex. ii, 5; John iii, 25 {lotio), 
lotus; John xiii, 10, baptizare; Matt, iii, 6-13. Castell. 

2. It renders it by shuhar, shue, " to give a bath or ad- 
minister a washing [pour water for it] ; to fall in drops of 
water, distill; to baptize. \_Lavandum dare, stillare, . . 
baptizare" Castell.] 

3. It renders purifying (John iii, 25) by baptism. 

4. Baptidzo is translated into the word used Exodus ii, 
5, washed, epi, at the river; Genesis xviii, 4, where it was 
with "a little water;" in John xiii, 10, where Christ washed 



334 BAPTISM. 

their feet, unquestionably by applying the water; for he 
would not plunge all their feet into the same basin, in "un- 
clean" water. It was water "upon" the feet. Luke vii, 
38, 39-44. 



ITALA, BEGINNING OF SECOND CENTUKY. 

1. This version renders bapto by sprinkle, asperso. 

2. It never renders baptidzo by dip or immerse. This 
is the more remarkable if baptidzo was equivalent to im- 
merse, since immerse is a Latin word, and this Latin ver- 
sion should have used it if baptidzo meant immerse. That 
was the very place for it. 

3. It renders tabhal by lavit (2 Kings v, 14), wash, be- 
sprinkle. 

4. It transfers baptidzo throughout. 

5. It renders baptize in Chaldee by sprinkle, consper- 
gatur. 

JEBOME'S VULGATE, A.D. 383. 

The Vulgate, so patiently rendered by the learned 
Jerome, based on the Itala, but made more smooth and 
elegant in style, is, like the Itala, of great value. 

1. It translates bapto by sprinkle (Rev. xix, 13).* 

2. It transfers baptidzo habitually. 

3. It never renders baptidzo, or any word for baptize, 
by immerse. 

4. It translates tabhal (Greek, baptidzo) (2 Kings v, 14) 
by lavit, wash, besprinkle. 

5. It translates baptize (tseva) (Dan. iv, 22) sprinkle.f 

. . * Greek peda/u/nevov al/uarc. Beza : Et amictus erat veste tincta san- 
guine. Vulgate, Etvestitus erat veste aspersa sanguine. 
t Daniel x, 22, et rove cceli ineunderis. 



THE ARABIC VERSION. 335 

6. It translates the same word (tffeva) in Daniel iv, 20, 

sprinkle. * 

LUTHERAN VERSION, 1522. 

The Lutheran version, 1522, renders baptidzo by — 

1. Taufen, to baptize, without implying mode. But 
when the version was made sprinkling and pouring were 
the general, yea, universal practice. This all acknowl- 
edge, and A. Campbell says so, quoting Erasmus, f Lu- 
ther poured the water on the infant's head when he said, 
"Ich taufe euch mit wasser." It is downright dishonesty 
to pretend that by taufen he and the various German trans- 
lators meant dip, whatever may have been its former force. 
With them it neither meant dip, sprinkle, nor pour, but 
was used as the Latins used baptidzo and iingo, for baptize. 

2. In 2 Kings v, 14, tabal — baptidzo; Luke xi, 38; 
Mark vii, 4, baptidzo is rendered waschen. 

3. Bapto is rendered in Revelation xix, 13, sprinkle 
(besprengt). 

The Lusitanian version renders both words in the same 
places the same — baptidzo, wash; bapto, sprinkle. 

The Jerusalem Targum renders rachats (" wash, pour") 
by taval, and tabal by rachats; the latter also by "washed 

* Daniel x, '20, et rore cceli conspergatur. 

t Chris. Baptisms, p. 192 : " Erasmus, who spent some time in Eng- 
land, during the reign of Henry VIII, observes, « With us [the Dutch], 
the baptized, have the water poured on them. In England they are 
dipped.'" And yet Judd, Ingham, Brents, Graves, all repeat the oft- 
refuted assumption that taufen was meant by the German of Luther for 
immerse, and so render it ! So of all the kindred versions, in the face 
of the fact that all those nations baptize by sprinkling, as A. Campbell 
admits, and they all know. Those versions all use different words in 
their versions for the dip of our version. But we have abundantly 
seen how they treat lexicons of all kinds, authorities, and versions as 
well. 



336 BAPTISM. 

their face with tears" (Gen. xliii, 30). This shows that 
these words were words of affusion. 

The Arabic and the Targum render Psalm vi, 6, 7, 
" wet my couch with my tears," brecho, with the word that 
translates baptidzo and tabal. 

It is useless to multiply facts. The sum of all this is — 

1. For fifteen hundred years after the Christian era not 
a single version made from the original Scriptures supports 
a case of immersion. 

2. Every version made supported affusion, and with 
overwhelming force. We have not quoted Wycliffe and 
several German versions falsified by Conant as made from 
the Greek. They were all made from the Latin, and hence 
have nothing to do with baptidzo or bapto. They would 
support us, especially Wycliffe, who has baptize wash, 
and for the aspersa of Jerome, sprinkle. But Wycliffe 
never saw a Greek Testament. The same applied to the 
Eheims, made from the Latin.* 

These versions establish the following facts : 

1. That affusion is so clearly taught in the Bible as the 
proper mode of baptism that all the pains and prejudice 
of James's translators, being honest but deeply prejudiced, 
could not obliterate them. 

2. That bapto continued to mean sprinkle as well as to 
stain, color, and dip. 

3. That baptidzo never was synonymous with dip, plunge 
or immerse in any age of the world. 

* The Danish version, 1524, has dole, baptize; the Swedish, 1534, 
has dopa, baptize ; the Dutch, 1560, doopen, baptize. These words may 
once have represented dip — primarily, moisten, wet, for aught we care. 
The point is, what did the translators mean by these words ? No honest 
man will pretend that they meant immerse, since they all then baptized 
by sprinkling in those countries, all immersion authorities so testifying. 
Hence they would use those words when sprinkling the parties as we 
use baptize. 



THE AEABIC VERSION. 337 

4. That baptize is translated by words meaning to wash, 
to cleanse, to sprinkle, besprinkle in all the best and 
purest versions from the apostolic to our times. 

5. Finally, no version of the fifteen centuries after the 
Christian era renders baptidzo, or words for baptize, by im- 
merse or its equivalent in any language. 

29 



338 BAPTISM. 



CHAPTER XXIX. 

Washing, Cleansing, Baptism — Wash in the Old 
Testament, Baptize in the New Testament. 

The inventive genius of immersionists is only equalled 
by their marvelous capacity at blundering, and their bold- 
ness in trampling under foot every law of language is only 
surpassed by their blind persistence in reproducing and 
reaffirming all the old quotations that have been exposed 
as garbled and entirely unreliable. 

They find color, dye, stain as definitions of bapto, tingo, 
etc., and all assert that color, stain, dye, come from dip! 
They see wash, cleanse, as meanings of baptidzo; they 
come from dip also ! 

facts on wash. 

1. The wash [Hebrew, r achats; Greek, louo,nipto,pluno, 
Jcludzo] . . of the Pentateuch, especially in Exodus, Levit- 
icus, and Numbers, all parties agree is the baptidzo with its 
nouns of the New Testament. However much the design 
and use may have varied, the wash of the one is the bap- 
tism of the other. We quoted much on this subject in the 
chapter on the laver baptisms. 

2. All immersionists as well as affusionists generally 
maintain that the washing of Acts xxii, 16; Ephesians v, 
26 ; Titus v, 5, 6 ; Hebrews x, 22, is a repeated reference 
to baptism, immersionists holding it to be baptism itself. 



WASHING, CLEANSING, BAPTISM. 339 

Dr. Carson says, "The word [rachats, wash] always 
includes dipping, and never signifies less."* 

3. All are agreed that the Greek word baptidzo means 
wash, cleanse, and most writers add purify. First. All 
standard lexicons, classic or biblical, render it wash, or 
cleanse. Second. All ancient versions without an excep- 
tion, where they translate the word, at times in the New 
Testament, render it wash.f 

4. All parties agree that for full fifteen hundred years — 
from the days of Moses till the close of the first century — 
from the origin of baptism as a sacred, heaven-ordained 
rite, to the commission of Christ to baptize, wash was con- 
stantly used, and for thirteen hundred years was the main 
word used for the rite — was the word employed at its 
first performance by Moses (Lev. viii, 6); hence the pro- 
priety of looking into this word in the various languages 
with more pains than has been the custom. 

On Hebrews x, 22, Dr. Graves cites and comments on 
it thus : " l Our bodies washed with pure water.' I have 
no doubt that this passage refers to Christian baptism." J 



THE WASH OF THE OLD TESTAMENT THE BAPTISM OF 
THE NEW. 

Wash, rachats in the Hebrew (Ex. xxx, 18-22; xl, 
30-33; Lev. viii, 6; Heb. x, 22; Eph. v, 26), all immer- 
sionists say are the divers baptisms of Hebrews ix, 10. 

The only question now is, What was the mode of these 

• Keflections on Wall's Hist. Inf. Bap., Letter IV, p. 94, vol. 2 ; Ox- 
ford Ed., 1862, in two volumes. 

t Syriac, amad, secho ; Arabic, amada, gasala ; Latin, lavo ; German, 
waschen, etc. 

% Carrollton Debate, p. 186. 



340 BAPTISM. 

baptisms? As far as facts go we have given enough in the 
chapter on the laver baptisms. But we wish to take up 
the word wash in the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures and 
examine it on its own merits now, and see how the word 
stands as between us and Drs. Carson, Gale, A. Campbell, 
Conant, Bingham, J. R. Graves, and Elder Wilkes, etc., 
immersionists. Now — 

1. No lexicon in existence ever denned the word Ira- 
chats] by immerse, dip, or plunge, or any equivalent word. 

2. No immersionist we ever read or heard ventured to 
render it immerse, dip, or plunge. 

3. Whenever it is rendered by a modal term, it is in 
every case either sprinkle, pour, or a word equivalent 
thereto. Proof — 

(1) Fiirst, the greatest of all Hebrew lexicographers, 
gives as its meaning, " to wash," and adds that its radical 
or primary meaning is "to flow, to pour out, to drip." 

(2) It is rendered cheo (jiv), to pour, in the Greek ver- 
sion [LXX] mainly used by the apostles. 

(3) It is used where Joseph washed his face (Gen. 
xliii, 30). Was that immersion? 

(4) It is translated in Jonathan's Targum by " washed 
his face with his tears." * 

(5) It is of the same root of and akin to, rachashjf " to 
pour out." 

(6) It is translated nipto in the Septuagint repeatedly, 
and several times where it is wash {eh) out of the laver, 
Hebrew min, out of. J 

The washing effected by rachats in the Bible, was by 
only a little over one fifth of a pint of water, when not out 

* Shazzag min dimshon. 
t Rachash effudit (Castell). 
\ See the Laver Baptisms. 



WASHING, CLEANSING, BAPTISM. 341 

of the laver. Hence the washing, out of the jars, as given 
in John ii, 6, George Campbell, A. Campbell, render 
(Mark vii, 3), " Wash their hands often by pouring a little 
water on them." Nipto is the word there used. Hinton 
(Baptist) cites Jahn, Koenoel, etc. to sustain this rendering. 

(7) In Arabic rachats, wash, and in iEthiopic, means 
primarily to sweat, perspire, sweat copiously. Then it 
means to wash, be washed, cleansed. Intensified, it is 
rachash in iEthiopic, and means a to bedew, make wet, 
same as the Hebrew rachats, to moisten, to water." * 

WASH — VD^ — louat — BAPTIZE IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

(8) Nipto \yiTtT(D~\, wash is the translation of the He- 
brew word matar, to rain, shed forth water. It always 
implies affusion. Its noun occurs in the Bible thirty-seven 
times, always implying affusion. The verb is rendered 
by the Greek (brechof) rain, ten times. Yet this word is 
rendered nipto, wash. Nay — 

(9) The place in our verson seized on as a favorite text 
by immersionists — Leviticus vii, 28, " rinsed in water " — 
is in the Greek washed or besprinkled with water.| 

(10) Rachats in Hebrew is often rendered in the Septu- 
agint version by louo, wash, in Greek, which no lexicon 
ever issued ever defined by immerse, dip, or plunge, but 
by wash, cleanse. Whenever louo is rendered by a modal 
word it is either sprinkle, or pour, or both. See below. 

(11) Rachats is rendered by pluno in the LXX also, 
which all lexicons render wash, and whenever modal, it 
is always sprinkle, or pour, or both. See below on it. 

*Maduit, humidus fuit, i. q. Heb. Vrn, madefecit, rigavlt. Castell, 
Heptagl. 3721. 

t Matar ; Greek, fipex u - 
% Klvoei vSarc, klusei hudati. 



342 BAPTISM. 

(12) This word r achats, thus translated and used in the 
Bible before apostolic times, is translated baptize (tabhaf) 
frequently by the ancient Hebrew (Chaldee) Targuais. 

Is it not refreshingly cool, then, in Dr. Gale, indorsed 
by Drs. Graves, Carson, etc. etc., to say, " The word ra- 
chats always includes dipping and never signifies less " ? 

3. Louo [Ao6w] thus used, rendered also baptize in Sy- 
riac in Susanna, as shown in the chapter on Versions, is the 
word imrnersionists render as they do raehats in Hebrew, 
by " to bathe," instead of wash or cleanse, as if bathe were 
a religious or ceremonial use of water ! Dr. Graves clings 
desperately to bathe. 

Liddell & Scott's English edition: "Louo, to wash; 
properly, to wash the body ; also to pour [water for wash- 
ing];" * "Loutrisy a woman employed to wash Minerva's 
Temple." Here her name is a " washer." Was the tem- 
ple dipped? 

What are the additional facts here ? The native Greek 
lexicographer, Galen, born A. D. 130, defining this word louo, 
puts it thus : " Louo, to wash, to pour, or sprinkle." The 
Etymologicon, a native Greek lexicon, defines it thus: a To 
sprinkle, to besprinkle, and to wash."f Hesychius thus: 
To sprinkle, to besprinkle, etc. % 

Pickering, in his later new edition of his Greek lexi- 
con, gives it: "Loutron, pi. [plural] loutra, libations for 
the dead." "Loutrophoros, one who brings water for bath- 
ing (Euripides, 358) ; a youth of either sex who brought 
water and poured it on the tomb of an unmarried person, 
(Demos., 1086, 15, etc.). Here the Greek word wash, 

* Ingham (Baptist), Hand-Book on Bap., p. 445, thus also cites him. 
t Alovdo [aspergo] tcaraxeiiv et Xoviiv (Stephanus's Thesaurus). 
X Alovdo, KciTavrTiTjocu, perfundere, rigare, 6id2.eXvp.ivov, igitur est pro 
alovrjaai. S.'s Thesaurus sub Xovu. 



WASHING, CLEANSING, BAPTISM. 343 

" bathe," in verb and noun forms alike, refer to wash, bathe 
as effected generally by affusion, not by immersion. 

Under "loutrocheo" Pickering, so much relied on by 
Dr. Graves, gives, "to pour out water for bathing" 

Henry Stephanus's Thesaurus, the most elaborate lexicon 
of the Greeek ever published in the world, defines louo 
thus: "To wash. In Hippocrates [a Greek medical 
author] it is not merely to wash, but also to sprinkle. In 
like manner Galen uses it in his lexicon where — ' for these 
are appointed, some to pour cold, the others to pour warm 
water upon those who are bat•hing. , " " Loutrochoos, pour- 
ing water for washing " — " sprinkled with cold water." * 
Let us now hear several of the latest and greatest Greek 
lexicons on wash. 

Host and Palm and Passow all define it alike, as well 
as the still later Pape, 1874, Liddell & Scott, thus : " Louo, 
to wash ; properly to wash the body ; also to pour [water 
for washing]." f Passow, Host, and Palm, under ballo, 
which some think was the root of bapto, say, " In the 
middle voice, to sprinkle oneself, ... to pour, to pour 
out, to sprinkle the water upon the body, i. e. to bathe; 
. . . to besprinkle oneself with bath-water" J 

Likewise Pape, under ballo: "That is, to besprinkle 
oneself with the bath-waters." § How does this " pan 

* 'Ett t6aX?xlv (6e dep/ubv) "Xeliovai, . . . aquam ad lavandam f lindens, 
frigida perfundor. 

tThis pet of immersionists still thus defines it, with the bracketed 
words as above, but Drisdel took it out of the American Edition, as in 
baptidzo, to appease Baptist fury. 

% Im med. sich besprengen, xP oa ^ovrpolc (louo), wegiessen, ausgiessen, 
sprengen, . . . Xovrpa ettI xp°6c (louo), i. e. baden, . . . wasser in ein 
gefass giessen, xp^ a - 

\ Aovrpole, sich mit bade- wasser besprengen. Here louo wash is 
pour and sprinkle for the bath. Bd/Uw . . . XP^ a fiaTJkeodai lovrpoie, sich 
mit bade-wasser besprengen. 



344 BAPTISM. 

out" for immerse as the bathe of the Greeks? But hear 
once more Liddell & Scott, Dr. Graves's favorite lexicon. 
Under chutla, plural noun from cheo, to pour " water for 
washing or bathing." " Hence chutho, to wash, bathe, 
anoint." Thus from pour comes wash, bathe again. 

Another word for sprinkle, hudraino, is defined by lexi- 
cons thus : " To wash, sprinkle, wet, moisten, bedew, pour 
out." * Does rachats or louo, wash, " always include dip- 
ping and never signify less"?f Liddell & Scott define 
loutris, noun from louo, wash : " A woman employed to 
wash Minerva's temple." How did she dip or immerse this 
wonder of the world. It is in order for some good im- 
mersionist to rise and speak. Rachats, wash, is rendered 
often by the Greek word pluno in the Bible. Native 
Greeks define bapto and baptidzo by piano, wash, also. 

Stephanus defines pluno by wash, cleanse, and also by 
" to wash with tears, pour forth tears," and " to make wet," 
" watering by sprinkling with warm water." % 

Passow, Host, Palm, Pape define it in substance as the 
first pluno, " to wash, wash off, cleanse, purify," . . . funda- 
mentally "to moisten, wet; Latin, to rain, flow." § 

Thus we see that pluno, wash, comes from the word 
rain, sustaining all our views on philology and annihi- 
lating the bold assertions that wash necessarily implies 
dip or that it implies it at all. Pour comes to mean wash. 
Sprinkle means to wash. Rain comes to mean to wash. 
Yet they say wash, bathe, implies immersion. 

* Graves gives it as above. 

t Gale's Reflec. Wall's History Inf. Baptism; A. Campbell's Chris. 
Baptism, pp. 85-6; Chris. Baptist, 1101. 

\Lachrymas effundere . . . madefacere et irrigans perfusio aqua fer- 
vida (Thesaurus Greek Lin., Stephanus). 

§ Passow: Ulvvio, waschen, spiilen, auswaschen, abspiilen, reinigen. 
. . . auschelten, strafen, wie unser einem den kopf waschen, . . . be- 
netzen, befeuchten, we denn das Lat. pluo v. jiuo. 



WASHING, CLEANSING, BAPTISM. 345 

In the Latin, as especially we have seen that all Latin- 
Greek lexicons translate par.nZio, baptidzo, by lavo, wash, 
when they come to the New Testament meaning of that 
word, we give all the best standards and latest. 

1. Schiller & Luenemann, edited by F. P. Leverett 
{Magnum Tot.), etc.: "Lavo (Jouo, Greek), to be washed, 
to bathe. Figuratively, to wash or bathe ; i. e. to moisten, 
besprinkle, bedew. Also to wash away, to remove." 

2. Freund's great work verbatim as the above. 

3. Ainsworth : " Lavo, to wash, to rinse, to bathe, to 
besprinkle." 

4. White (1873) : "Lavo (akin to Xouw), to wash, bathe, 
lave; to bathe oneself, to bathe; to wash, of the sea, to 
flow over, wet; of tears — to wet, moisten, bathe, bedew, 
to sprinkle, wet." 

As in all the cases, so here, wherever mode is expressed 
it is affusion. Yet they will tell you that wash was always 
to immerse in the Bible! 

The laver baptism further confirms all the above. John 
ii, 6, shows it incontrovertibly as well. Compare 2 Kings 
iii, 11; Numbers xix, 21, 22; Leviticus x, 34; xv, 34-36; 
Lightfoot's Horse Heb. 2, p. 416. "Elisha poured the 
water on the hands of Elijah" for his washing. This 
also Lightfoot's facts from the rabbins demonstrate : They 
allot one fourth part of a log for the washing of one per- 
son's hands; it may be of two; half a log for three or 
four; a whole log for five to ten, nay, to one hundred, 
with this provision, saith Rabbi Jose, that the last that 
washeth hath no less than a fourth part of a log for him- 
self. A log is five sixths (£) of a pint. Now how could 
two persons be washed with the fourth of five sixths of a 
pint? One hundred washed with five sixths of a pint of 
water. Could they immerse their hands in it? Could 



346 BAPTISM. 

one man immerse both hands in one ninth of a pint? 
Does not this show it was by sprinkling? In Lightfbot, 
from folio 21, 22, we read of Rabbi Abika, who being in 
prison, washed with half the water brought him to drink. 
Did he immerse his hands in the drinking vessel? No 
such thing was demanded or practiced. Yet in the face of 
all these undenied and undeniable records, with not one 
item to the contrary to be found any where, immersionists 
set up the claim that rachats, louo, nipto, lavo — wash — im- 
plies immerse every time in the Bible ; that wash is derived 
from immerse — a thing so absolutely preposterous that not 
a word that properly and strictly means immerse in the 
whole world in any language ever means wash, or one that 
means properly to dip as its primary meaning. On the 
contrary, wash is constantly derived from words that pri- 
marily mean to sprinkle, to pour, to moisten or wet, to 
water, to flow, rain, shed forth. They all teach that bap- 
tidzo does mean to wash or apply to it ; that baptidzo was 
implied always in the rachats, louo. 



MODERN COMMENT ATOKS AND CRITICS. 347 



CHAPTER XXX. 

Modern Commentators and Critics. 

Imraersionists cite commentators who admit, as all men 
do, that sometimes baptidzo means immerse and apply it 
as an admission that it never means sprinkle or pour or 
admits of baptism by such modes. Examples innumer- 
able could be given from their earliest authorities to their 
latest. But we forbear to cite them so often. 

1. Alford, on Mark vii, 4: "The baptismoi, as applied 
to klinoi (couches at meals), were certainly not immersions, 
but sprinklings or affusions of water." On Acts ii, 41, 
vol. 2, p. 25, he says, "Almost without doubt this first 
baptism must have been administered, as that of the first 
Gentile converts was (see chap, x, p. 47, and note), by affu- 
sion or sprinkling, not by immersion. Italics his. 

2. Fairbairn: "The ' divers' [in Hebrews ix, 10 — * di- 
vers baptisms'] evidently points to the several uses of 
water, such as we know to have actually existed under the 
law — sprinklings, washings, bathings." * 

Baumgarten, another of the great modern scholars of 
Europe, German, "The Baptism of Saul " . . . he " is bap- 
tized ... by means of the water poured upon him."f 
Again, "With a part of the same water" used in washing 
the apostles' stripes, "the keeper of the prison and all his 

* Hermeneut. Manual, Art. Baptidzo. 
t Com. on Acts ix, 1-36, p. 238-9. 



348 BAPTISM. 

were baptized . . . without the dipping of the whole 
body in the open, running water."* 

4. Bengel, a universal favorite with all critics, " Gno- 
mon, " a commentary, like Alford's and Baumgarten's, 
only for the critical scholar : " Immersion in baptism, or 
at least the sprinkling of water upon the person, repre- 
sented burial; burial is a confirmation of death." On 
Romans vi, 4, vol. 3. 

5. Stier, one of the most careful, able, and volumi- 
nous of German commentators, says, " Baptidzo occurs 
often in the sense of mere washing." He supposes at 
times they may have been "dipped," "where otherwise 
baptism be administered by sprinkling, as probably with 
the thousands on the day of Pentecost." Reden Jesu, 
viii, 307, note. 

6. Bloomfield, Greek text on Hebrews ix, 10: Bap- 
tisms — "Bap. denotes those ceremonial ablutions of various 
sorts, some respecting priests, others the people at large, 
detailed in Leviticus and Numbers." On Acts viii, 38: 
" Philip seems to have taken up water with his hands and 
poured it copiously on the eunuch's head." Mark vii, 4, 
he urges, "is not implied immersion." 

7. Olshausen, one of the greatest and best commenta- 
tors of any age, and the most impartial and profound, says 
on John iii, 25-27, " The dispute was on baptism — katha- 
rismos, equivalent to baptisma (baptism)." Mark vii, 4: 
"Ablutions of all sorts, among the rest those applicable 
to the priest (Ex. xxix, 18, sq. with Heb. ix, 10), were 
common among the Jews. Baptismos is here as in He- 
brews ix, 10, ablution, washing generally; Jclinai here, 
couches on which the ancients were wont to recline at 
meals." Here he held that the legal sprinklings of John 

*Ibid., Acts xvi, 11-40, p. 134, vol. 2. 



MODERN COMMENTATORS AND CRITICS. 349 

iii, 25-27; of the priests (Ex. xxix, 4, etc.), were the 
"diverse baptisms" of Paul (Heb. ix, 10). That the 
couches of dining were baptized as the Jews did — by 
affusion. Again, on Acts ii, he concludes the three thou- 
sand were baptized by sprinkling — "The difficulty can 
only be removed by supposing that they already employed 
mere sprinkling/' etc. (vol. 4, 383). 

8. Gerhard, of whom the late most scholarly Tholuck 
says,* "The most learned, and with the learned, the 
most beloved among the heroes of Lutheran orthodoxy," 
says, "Whether a man is baptized by immersion into 
water, or by sprinkling, or applying the water to him, it 
is the same" (Doc. Theol. ix, 137). 

9. Reinhard: "Earthly or perceptible, pure, natural 
water in which a person is immersed, or with which he is 
partially sprinkled, is the baptism instituted by Christ." 
(Dogmat. pp. 570-572). Also — 

10. Carpzovtf "Baptism is a Greek word, and in 
itself means a washing, in whatever way performed, 
whether by immersion in water, or by aspersion. . . It is 
not restricted to immersion or aspersion; hence it has 
been a matter of indifference from the beginning whether 
to administer baptism by immersion or by pouring of 
water" (Issagoge, p. 1085). 

11. A. Clark: "Were the people dipped or sprinkled? 
for it is certain bapto and baptidzo mean both."| The 
same in substance he says on Mark vii, 4; Mark x, 16; 
Acts xvi, 32. He considers Romans vi, 4, refers to im- 
mersion among Jews in proselyte baptism, but that John 

* In Herzog's Cyclop. 

f Carpzov ranks among the most learned, along with the Buxtorfs, 
Lightfoots, Pococks, etc. 
X On Matthew iii, 6. 



350 BAPTISM. 

baptized by sprinkling as well as those under the apostles 
most generally. 

12. Lightfoot: " The word therefore, baptismous (wash- 
ings), applied to all these [people, Pharisees, and all the 
Jews (verse 3), vessels, beds of Mark vii, 4], properly 
and strictly, is not to be taken of dipping or plunging, 
but, in respect of some things, of washing only, and in 
respect of others, of sprinkling only." * 

13. Archbishop Kendrick (Catholic) has been mis- 
quoted so often, we cite him. On Hebrews ix, 10 — " Bap- 
tism" — he says, "St. Paul calls the various ablutions of 
the old law, many of which were by aspersions, divers 
baptisms. . . Thus it appears manifest that the term was 
in his time used indiscriminately for all kinds of ablu- 
tion" (On Baptism, p. 188). See him also page 322 J on 
Patristic Baptism — Augustine. 

14. J. Wesley: "The Greek word [baptize] means in-' 
differently either washing or sprinkling." Mark vii, 4. 
He argues that John did not immerse but sprinkled the 
multitudes he baptized; and the three thousand and five 
thousand in Acts, as well as the jailer, Saul, etc. were all 
baptized by affusion. He holds that Hebrews x, 22, 
alludes to the ancient manner of baptizing by sprinkling; 
while Romans vii, 4 ; Colossians ii, 12, allude to immersion 
as an ancient practice. See his note on Colossians ii, 12. 

15. Beza, sixteenth century. The way Beza is habitu- 
ally quoted may be seen in the various immersion works, 
as he is the favorite authority.* Now, while Beza says 

* Horse Hebraicse et Tal. ii, 419, Eng. Ed. In edition of 1658, vol. 1, 
in Evang. Marci vii, 4, Vox ergo Paima/iovc: ad hcec omnia applicata, pro- 
prie et stride non accipienda est de tinctione aut immersione, sed quoad 
nonnulla de latione tdntum, et quoad nonnulla de aspersione tantiim. 

f See Graves-Ditzler Debate, p. 520-1, as an example — same as in all 
standard authorities by immersion ists. 



MODERN COMMENTATORS AND CRITICS. 351 

a part of what they cite, yet they stop short and leave him 
testifying for their views and against affusion as baptism, 
just as they do Terretinus, Vossius, Witsius, Stephanus, 
Scapula, etc., etc. Here is what Beza says: "Baptidzes- 
thai in this place (Mark vii, 4) is more than cherniptein 
[wash the hands], because that seems to be understood of 
the whole body, this merely of the hands. Neither in- 
deed does baptidzein signify to wash except by consequence. 
For properly it expresses immersion for the purpose of 
dyeing." He then refers to Matthew iii, 11, where he de- 
fines it not only by " merger e," to sink, but by " made/a- 
cere" to make wet, and "tingere" to wet, to dye. That 
it answers to the Hebrew tabhal rather than to rachats and 
is used to express washing and cleansing.* Like Schleus- 
ner, Stokius, Witsius, Suicer, etc. he believes wash was 
a derived meaning from immerse as the classic meaning 
most in use. But, like them, he held that from wash, 
cleanse, it came to mean washing, cleansing, without re- 
gard to mode, and that affusion was practiced by* the 
apostles for baptism, as the following words will show : 
Acts i, 5 : " John indeed baptized with water." Beza 
says on this passage, "With the Holy Spirit. The prep. 
en is rightly omitted. ... As if Christ had said, John 
indeed baptized you, but the Holy Spirit shall baptize 
you. But here is a double antithesis, if I mistake not, 
. . . when from the one [Father] emanated the Holy 
Spirit, the other is of the water poured by John and of 
the Holy Spirit falling upon the apostles, which mission 

*Ut lavandi et abluendi, et lotionis vocabnlo (Beza's Annot. on Matt. 
iii, 11, folio ed. 1598). What he says on amad is, in the above, that 
amad does not differ from it. But he there had said baptidzo meant 
" madefacere" to moisten, make wet; to wash, then, was as above shown. 
It reads, " madefacere et mergere" and of that coming to mean hamad 
[amad], quo utuntur Syri pro baptizare. 



352 BAPTISM. 

of the Holy Spirit and pouring [of the water by John] 
is called by metaphor baptism. " He thinks this "an- 
tithesis is better understood."* Here Beza shows that 
he held the old theory that, first, baptidzo, in classic 
usage generally meant immerse; second, as usual with 
them all, he finds that meaning to it in the later Greek 
writers, Plutarch being his first citation; third, that it 
came to mean wash, cleanse, by consequence ; fourth, that < 
from wash, cleanse, it came to mean wash, cleanse with- 
out regard to mode; fifth, that pouring became the set- 
tled practice of baptism even in John's day. 

16. Terretinus, seventeenth century, a great author- 
ity, is cited for immersion constantly. Like Beza, he held 
that baptidzo properly meant to immerse in the classics of 
the age of Plutarch, etc. That it came to mean to wash, 
to cleanse, by consequence. We need not cite all he says, 
but admit it to the full. Yet he goes on to say, "There 
are not wanting various reasons for sprinkling also: (1) 
Because the word baptismou and the verb baptidzesthai are 
not spoken [or used] merely of immersion, but also of 
sprinkling (Mark vii, 4; Luke xi, 38). "f Then follow five 
arguments to sustain his position, urging that in the apos- 
tolic day, as on Pentecost, etc. the baptism was by sprink- 
ling. 

17. Witsius, a.d. 1685, held that " it is not to be sup- 
posed that immersion was so necessary to baptism as that 
the rite could not be performed by perfusion or sprinkling. 

* Johannes quidcm vos baptizavit, sed spiritus sanctus vos baptizabit. 
Hie autem est antithesis duplex, ni fallor, una Johannis cum Christo vel 
Deo Patre, nam post ftaTrrt&Gede, id est baptizabimini . . . altera est 
aquce a Joanne EFFUSE, et spiritus sancti Apostolis mittendi ; qua spir- 
itus sancti et effusio hie translatitie vocatur baptismus. 

tRationes etiain pro aspertione non desunt varice; (1) Quia vox ftaTrrio- 
fxov et verbum fiaTtri&oQai, non tantum de immersione dicitur, sed et de 
aspersione (Mark vii, 4; Luke xi, 38). 



MODERN COMMENTATORS AND CRITICS. 353 

... It is more probable that the three thousand who 
were baptized in one day (Acts ii, 41), were perfused or 
sprinkled with water, than immersed." He then gives his 
reasons, and adds again, " Neither is it credible that Cor- 
nelius, and Lydia, and the jailer, baptized in private 
houses along with their families, had baptisteries in which 
they could be wholly immersed. Vossius brings examples 
of perfusion from antiquity, etc." * (2) " It is granted that 
baptidzein properly signifies to sink, yet also more gen- 
erally it is used for any kind of cleansing, as Luke xi, 28." 
Here he cites authorities again, and goes on to cite Scrip- 
ture for baptism, "for pouring," and " for sprinkling." 

18. Vossius holds the same views as the above, and need 
not be further cited, since Witsius cites him for his views. 
Vossius gives as a leading New Testament meaning of 
baptidzOj " To sprinkle, or wash the body of any one sac- 
ramen tally (Matt, iii, 11). "f 

The list could be indefinitely extended, but to what 
good purpose? These are the masters, the others merely 
repeat. But these authors, by extensively applying their 
views of baptidzo, show how recklessly immersionists have 

*Hermanni Witsi. . . . "De CEconomia Feed. Dei, 1685, p. 672, xiv, 6, 
Non tamen existamandum est, adeo ad baptismum necessariam esse im- 
mersionem, ut perfusione vel aspersione rite peragi non possit. Nam et 
perfusio ac adspersio habent quo se tueantur. 1. Non si apostolos mersisse 
comperiamus, eo ritum hunc semper observasse consequitur. Probabilius 
est, eos ter mille, qui una die baptizabantur (Acts ii, 1), aqua perfusos vel 
adspersos, qudm mersos esse. . . . Neque credibile est, Cornelium et Ly- 
diam, et commentariensem, in privatis cedibus una cum suis, baptizatos, 
baptisteria ad manum habuisse, quibus toti immergi potuerint. Perfu- 
sionis exempla ex antiquitate attulit Vossius Disput. 1. De Baptis. Th., 
ix, quae, eadem ordine, dissimulato tamen Vossii nominee, Lexico suo Anti- 
quitatum Eccles. p. 66, inseruit Joshua Arndius. 2. Licet pairri&iv pro- 
prie signified mergere, tamen etiam generalius usupatur de quolicunque 
ablutione; ut Luc. xi, 38, etc. . . . De Superfusione . . . De Adspersione. 

f Vossius, "Adspergere seu abluere corpus alicuijus sacrementaliter'* 
(Matt, iii, 11). 

30 



354 BAPTISM. 

used their assertions, and how wildly and viciously they 
interpreted the old-school lexicographers. 

19-21. Drs. Jameson, Fausset, and Brown, in their crit- 
ical commentary, adopt Olshausen's words on Acts ii, 41, 
just quoted, and even on Philip and the eunuch adopt 
the view of Bloomfield, Baumgarten, and others, saying, 
" Probably laving the water upon him" (Acts viii, 38). 

22. Wall, constantly misrepresented, says, " The word 
baptidzo in the Scriptures signifies to wash in general, with- 
out determining the sense to this or that sort of washing." 
He urges its use in Scripture is not that of secular authors. 
Then says of the Scripture use of baptidzo that it applies to 
such washing " as is by pouring or rubbing water on the 
thing or person washed, or some part of it " (vol. 1, 536-7, 
ed. 1862, by H. Cullon, London). He then quotes Mark vii, 
where they are to wash their hands. He cites 2 Kings 
iii, 11, to prove it was by water poured on them. He then 
says, "Now this washing of the hands is called by St. Luke 
the baptizing of a man" (Luke xi, 38). Again, "And 
the divers washings of the Jews are called diaphoroi bap- 
tismoi — diverse baptisms (Heb. ix, 10). Of which some were 
by bathing, others by sprinkling (Num. viii, 2)," etc. On 
patristic baptisms we cite only one out of many he cites 
(vol. 2, p. 520) : " Origen here does plainly call pouring 
water on a thing baptizing it." He then cites the baptism 
of the altar, given far more fully in this work. Wall does 
complain bitterly of parties who merely touched the child 
with a few drops of water — opposes such sprinkling, but 
proves to his own satisfaction that sprinkling and pouring 
are baptism according to the Bible and the fathers. 

23. Lange, held as an immersionist, says, on John i, 26, 
" ' I baptize/ etc. ... I baptize only with water ; the 
baptism of the Spirit is reserved to the Messiah. . . . The 



MODERN COMMENTATORS AND CRITICS. 355 

Messiah is the proper Baptist of the Prophets, and his 
[the questioner] implied assertion — your interpretation of 
Ezekiel xxxvi, 25 — is false. But because this true Baptist 
is here, I with my water baptism prepare him for baptiz- 
ing with the Spirit." 

Here Lange holds, with Rossenmiiller, Havernick, 
Bleek, etc., that the u sprinkle with clean water" of Ezekiel 
xxxvi, 26, was held by all Jews as baptism. 

Again, on John iii, 5 — "born of water" — Lange refers 
to Ezekiel xxxvi, 25 — " Then will I sprinkle clean water 
upon you " — as the baptism implied, as well as to Isaiah i, 
16 ; Jeremiah xxxiii, 8, etc. [on John iii, 5]. 

24. M. Stuart is so often so garbled as to misrepresent 
him altogether, which necessitates a long quotation from 
him: "We have also seen, in Nos, 2, 5, 6, of examples 
from the Septuagint and Apocrypha, that the word baptidzo 
sometimes means to wash, and bapto to moisten, to wet, or 
bedew. There is, then, no absolute certainty, from usage, 
that the word baptidzo, when applied to designate the rite 
of baptism, means of course to immerge or plunge" (p. 76). 
Dr. Graves's ed. 1856, p. 73, he had proved that baptidzo 
was employed " to designate the idea of copious affusion or 
effusion, in a figurative manner." Page 84 he says of bap- 
tidzo, "Both the classic use and that of the Septuagint 
show that washing and copious affusion are sometimes 
signified by this word." Page 158 — all in italics — " No in- 
junction is any where given in the New Testament respect- 
ing the manner in which this rite shall be performed." 
" My belief is that we do obey the command to baptize 
when we do it by affusion or sprinkling" (p. 195). 

On page 185 he urges that Baptists rely "on the exe- 
gesis of the fathers and the ancient churches. New Tes- 
tament usage of the word in cases not relevant to this rite 



356 BAPTISM. 

clearly does not entitle you to such a conclusion with any 
confidence." Like Terretinus and others, he refers to the 
primitive and ancient church as distinct from the apostolic 
or New Testament church. He believes the three thou- 
sand (Acts ii, 41) and the five thousand, as well as Saul, 
the jailer, etc., were all baptized by affusion, and that Ro- 
mans vi, 3, 4, does not refer to water baptism and was not 
immersion. 

25. Dr. Barnes, being so often cited by immersionists, 
says of baptidzo, " Fourth. It can not be proved from an 
examination of the passages in the Old and New Testa- 
ments that the idea of a complete immersion ever was 
connected with the word or that it ever in any case 
occurred"* (Notes on Matthew iii, 6). 

26. To these could be added Tholuck, Ebrard, Haver- 
nick, Kiihnoel, Bleek, Henstenburg, Rossenmiiller, Schaaf, 
Watson, Geo. Hill, Doddridge, John Locke; but it is a 
waste of time and space to cite so many. But we close 
with the illustrious and renowned Lightfoot, the greatest 
luminary in these matters in that century of learning, the 
seventeenth. Luke iii, 16: "I baptize you," etc. "These 
seem to have been the words that he used in sprinkling 
or applying the water: 'I baptize thee/" etc. "'With 
water/ " in the Greek it is indifferently with or in, answer- 
able to the Hebrew preposition either local or instru- 
mental." "So it is almost as little to be doubted that 
when they were there [into the river] he threw and sprink- 
led the water upon them." Works, vol. 4, p. 279, Lon- 
don, 1822. Of Christ's baptism he says, "He went into 
the water, had water sprinkled on him" (Ibid., p. 305). 

*But when he precedes this by saying that "baptize signifies orig- 
inally to tinge, to dye, to stain," he puts himself along with the careless 
class we have had to criticise so often ; for all know that baptidzo has no 
such meaning, but bapto has. 



MODERN COMMENTATORS AND CRITICS. 357 



CYCLOPEDIAS. 

Dr. Graves and A. Campbell parade the testimony of 
cyclopedias. We could parade a number also, but as they 
merely copy each other, some abridging, the ten Dr. 
Graves (Debate, pp. 510, 511) adduces merely following 
Wall in the main. But the first one he quotes (Edinburgh 
Encyclopedia), and most elaborately, states what every 
scholar versed in the facts knows to be utterly untrue 
when it says, " In the Assembly of Divines, held at West- 
minster in 1643, it was keenly debated whether immersion 
or sprinkling should be adopted; twenty-five voted for 
sprinkling and twenty-four voted for immersion," etc. 
He then tells of Dr. Lightfoot, etc. This is utterly un- 
true as narrated. The facts are, the only debated question 
was, whether, in addition to sprinkling, ministers should 
be allowed to immerse where parties preferred or whether 
they should not be so allowed, and that was defeated. It 
was not debated whether they should allow of sprinkling 
or immersion. As Dr. G.'s first authority so falsifies these 
well-known historic facts, we pass all the rest. 



358 



CHAPTER XXXI. 

CONCLUSION. 

And now, dear reader, with the fruits of years of most 
painful study and research before you, in all fairness and 
kindness, with a serene trust and earnest hope that this 
controversy will speedily terminate, we do most solemnly 
and in the fear of God arraign before the bar of all these 
crushing facts our immersionist friends, and openly charge 
them with the awful responsibility of the divisions and 
rents in the body of Christ, the strifes and bad blood that 
have been too often engendered by their narrow proscrip- 
tions and intolerant aggressions. For years they have 
waged a dogmatic war all along the ecclesiastical lines. 
At times, when infidelity and crime were going hand in 
hand together through the land, smiting and threatening 
the very stability of society itself and sapping all the 
foundations of virtue, they have drawn off from the al- 
most shattered and bleeding columns of the struggling 
army of truth and actually poured in a volley upon the 
worn flanks of the advancing yet reeling columns of the 
holy cause. In the fearful struggles of the great Refor- 
mation they turned against the heroic Luther and chilled 
the warm zeal of whole States. They split the Reforma- 
tion. They filled the land with civil wars. They almost 
shattered the columns on which all Europe depended for 
deliverance from the thraldom and tyranny of besotted 
Rome. Even in the present age their historians boast of 



CONCLUSION. 359 

this crime against society and the world. Starting out 
with a cause so wretched, so destitute of fact, reason, or 
historic support, they have felt compelled from the start to 
garble authorities, misquote, interpolate, and blur and blot 
every record they have touched in history or literature. 
Hence it has been most common for their partisan writers to 
add to these offenses the crime of personal defamation and 
slander against all who boldly deny to them an entire 
infallibility on these questions. To break the force of 
exposure and opposition they often carry their opponent 
through all the distorting organs of detraction and abuse, 
while men who were besotted with prejudice and steeped 
in ignorance are held up as gods if they but support their 
cause. 

To add to the evil, many of them have aimed with too 
much success to elevate a single command that had never 
before been hinted by Christ, never insisted on in the case 
of blessing any mortal while among the people over three 
years, into the old Pharisaical idea of "the great com- 
mandment," while they boldly proceed, like their predeces- 
sors in ecclesiastical narrowness, to unchurch all who fail 
to repeat their shibboleth. They have proceeded to blur 
and blot the simple, beautiful rite instituted by Christ, 
until the symbol of life is distorted into the supposed like- 
ness of death. Baptism is a door. It is a death. It is a 
burial. It is a resurrection. It is a seal of pardon. It 
is a seal of the covenant. It is an initiatory rite. It is for 
remission. It is regeneration with others. Verily, is it 
not a god ? They have so covered up the beautiful sym- 
bolism of this rite with the huge and indigestible mass of 
the debris of the old and wornout rubbish of antiquity and 
heathen superstition that it is a task from which a Hercules 
would have fled, to relieve it of the rotten mass, and 



360 BAPTISM. 

would have regarded the Augean stable as a breakfast 
spell. Every fact is distorted that bears on the subject. 
To such a bold fanaticism have some of them come that 
they suppose the Eternal will mercifully forgive men who 
have spurned his offers, insulted his messengers, crucified 
his Son, trampled on his truth, yet will save them and par- 
don them of all crimes on confessing that they believe 
Christ is the Son of God — a fact that they never doubted — 
had believed all the time — and suffer themselves to be 
dipped in a pond of water ! Yet he will not forgive you 
though you believe his whole Word, pray daily, live as 
spotless as a Paul, and fill the land with the praise of your 
good deeds if you fail of a dip of water! 

It is the duty of all to obey God in all things. It is 
the duty of all to pray, to be baptized, to keep his com- 
mandments, pay their debts, be charitable. But it is rank 
idolatry to set up this rite to be honored and adored as 
above all his commandments. Our Gospel is not bound. 
Let the broad and noble principles of an enlightened 
and elevating Christianity expand our minds, enlarge the 
circle of our thoughts, and redeem us from evil. 



INDEX. 



PAGE. 

"J&non near Salim," 26, 66-67 

Altar of Elijah baptized, 273 

Amad, Baptist quotations on, 314 

Lexicons on, 314-319 

Literature of, 322-325 

Syriac for baptize, 314 

Versions on, 315-320 

Apo, from, not out of, 31 

Arabic versions on baptism, 328 

Aristotle, baptidzo in, 260 

Authors, blunders of, 1-3, 6 

Baptidzo, lexicons on, 138-167 

Ancient versions on, 311 

Authorities on, 347 

Classic usage of, 88, 217 

How rendered by immersionists, 101 

How translated (see Translations). 

In later Greek, 263 

In the house of its friends, 203 

N. T. use of, 88, 91, 94, 95 

O. T. and N. T. sense of, 199 

Patristic usage of, 271-289 

Philology of, 168 

Primary meaning of, 226, 301 

"Why not translate, 356 

Baptism, administrator of, 11 

Buried by, into death, 46-51 

Design of, 11, 16-22 

Eunuch's, the, 32 

Five thousand and three thousand, 35 

31 (361) 



362 • INDEX. 

Baptism, mode of (see Laver, Bapto, Baptidzo, Translations, etc). 

Origin of, 15_2i 

Symbolic import of, 72, 73 

With blood, 282 

"With tears, 282 

Baptists in harmony, 210 

Bapto, classic occurrences of, 110-122 

Fathers and translations on, 122-125 

In Daniel, 122 

In N. T. and Septuagint, 22 

Lexicons on, 106 107 

Philology of, 127 

Primary meaning of, 126-137 

Root of baptidzo, . . . 126 

Beza correctly reported, 213 

Born of water, 52 

Bury, meaning of, in Scriptures, 47 

Ceremonial cleansing, 60 

Changes in meaning, 88 

Classic and 1ST. T. Greek, 97 

Classics, use of baptism in, 76, 217, 234 

Codex Sinaiticus, 329 

Commentators and critics, modern, 347 

Conant on baptidzo, 263 

Conclusion, 358 

Convenience, 55 

Criticisms, ancient — errors, 213 

Cyclopedias, 357 

Dale, errors of, 221 

Decency in baptism, 55, 56 

Dip not immerse, . 243 

Ei's, to, into, at, etc., 26,30,31 

En, with, and in, 27, 52-55 

Epi, at, to, 29 

Facts, summary of, 234-255 

First occurrence of baptism, 308 

Frequent baptisms (washings), 64,65,66 

Gasala, Arabic for baptize, etc. (see Translations). 
Graves, Dr. J. B., blunders and perversions of, 8, 10, 49, 90, 91, 98, 139- 

141, 143, 150-155. 
Greek, classic and N. T., 88 



INDEX. 363 

Health, 55 

History of baptism, facts on, 284 

Immersion, arguments for, 11-14 

Origin of, 285 

To sink, 169 

Jordan, swift, 39-43 

Josephus on laver, 63 

Kabas, 71 

Laver, baptism at, 57-69 

Laws of science ignored, 232 

Learning in Dark Ages, revival of, 76-87 

Lexicons, 76 

Greek, on bapto, 105 

Liddell & Scott's Lexicon, frequent changes, .... 155, 156, 157, note. 

Louo, wash, pour, 342 

Maimonides misquoted, 69-72 

Matar, 183 

Meanings, primary and derived, 88 

Metaphorical uses, 37 

Novatian, baptism of, 277 

Origin and design of baptism, 15 

Of immersion, 285 

Patristic Greek, baptidzo in, 271-289 

Baptism, 279 

Pentateuch, "wash" in, 60 

Peshito-Syriac, 315 

Philology, v .... 168 

Principles of, 171 

Science of language, 173, 176 

Planted, what implied by, 47 

Pouring, 38 

Primary meaning, 91-93 

Rachats, to " pour out," 71 

Koots and their meanings, 92 

Saul, baptism of, 29 

Shataph, Gesenius's definition of, 71 

Solomon's temple, laver in, 61 

Sprinkle or touch baptizes, 301-305 

Stain, dye, 133 

Standard folio lexicons, 292 

Symbolic import of baptism, 72 



364 INDEX. 

Syriac, the, 311 

Versions, 320 

Tabhal, Hebrew for baptidzo, 290, 306 

Primary meaning of, 71 

Targum of Jonathan, 19, 63 

Tingo, 246 

Drs. Graves and Toy on, 250 

Jerome on, 251 

Lexicons on, 252 

Translations or Versions, 311,328-337 

iEthiopic, 330 

Arabic, 328 

Basmuric, 332 

Coptic, 332 

Egyptian, 332 

German, 335 

Itala, 330, 334 

James's, made by immersionists, 86 

Persic, 333 

Sahidic, 333 

Syriac, 311 

Vulgate, Jerome's, 334 

Tertullian first to name dipping for baptism, 281 

Unscientific methods, 221 

Versions (see Translations). 

"Wash, 199-202, 338 

Washing familiar to all people, 22 

"Words change meaning, 88 



I 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: Sept. 2005 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724) 779-21 1 1 



Si 



